Subjective Cognitive Decline and Financial Exploitation Vulnerability

Background and Purpose: Financial exploitation among older adults is an increasingly visible concern, with significant implications for financial security and well-being. Emerging research highlights the importance of understanding older adults' vulnerability to financial exploitation and the associated factors. The Financial Exploitation Vulnerability Scale (FEVS), derived from the Lichtenberg Financial Decision-Making Scale (LFDRS), was created to assess older adults' risk of financial exploitation and incorporates contextual domains such as financial strain, psychological vulnerability, and interpersonal dynamics. Prior research using the FEVS has demonstrated that vulnerability to financial exploitation is significantly associated with Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD), a self-rated measure of cognitive decline. The current study aims to cross-validate those findings. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) Individuals reporting SCD would be more likely to fall into moderate- or high-risk categories of financial exploitation vulnerability as measured by the FEVS, and (2) SCD would be associated with higher FEVS scores, even after controlling for demographic characteristics including age, education, race, and gender.

Methods: Data were obtained from 1,436 adults who completed the FEVS through the publicly accessible Older Adult Nest Egg (OANE)website between 2021 and 2025. The sample was 54.2% female, 82.6% White (other racial and ethnic groups were combined as "people of color"), and had a mean age of 72.6 years. Sixty-nine percent of the sample had a college education or higher, 16.5% had some college, and 14.4% had a high school education or less. The FEVS is a 17-item self-administered measure that provides a cumulative risk score for financial exploitation. SCD was assessed using a single self-report item asking participants whether their memory had declined over the past year. Demographic variables were also self-reported. Statistical analyses included chi-square tests to examine differences in categorical risk levels and multiple linear regression to evaluate the independent association between SCD and FEVS scores, when controlling for demographics.

Results: Thirty-nine percent of participants reported SCD. In relation to hypothesis one, a significant association between SCD and financial exploitation risk categories was found. Individuals reporting SCD are disproportionately represented in moderate and high-risk FEVS groups. Over 60% of participants with SCD were classified as moderate or high risk, compared to approximately 30% of those without SCD. Regarding the second hypothesis, the regression model indicated that SCD was the strongest predictor of vulnerability to financial exploitation, even after controlling for demographic factors. The overall model was statistically significant and accounted for 19.9% of the variance in FEVS scores.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings provide strong support for the association between SCD and vulnerability to financial exploitation and further validate the FEVS as a clinically useful, person-centered screening tool. The current results suggest that SCD may function as an early warning sign of increased vulnerability to financial exploitation, even before clinically detectable cognitive impairment. In social work practice, integrating brief screening measures, such as the FEVS, into routine assessments may enhance early identification of at-risk older adults and inform the need for targeted prevention and intervention strategies to reduce financial exploitation.