ArticleAlzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2018
Factor structure and measurement invariance of a neuropsychological test battery designed for assessment of cognitive functioning in older Mexican Americans.
Article in Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement differences in the Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol across ethnicity and language in the United States.Neuropsychology · 2026Article
- Serum lipidomic analysis identifies potential therapeutic targets for neurodegeneration.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Heterogeneity in cognitive profiles of monolingual and bilingual Hispanic/Latino older adults in HABS-HD.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2024Article
- The effect and mechanism of cypermethrin-induced hippocampal neurotoxicity as determined by network pharmacology analysis and experimental validation.Bioengineered · 2021Article
- Association of Blood Pressure and Cognition after Stroke.Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe present study sought to investigate the measurement invariance of commonly used neuropsychological tests in an ethnically (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic) and linguistically (Spanish vs. English) diverse sample.
methodsParticipants were 736 middle-aged and older adults (
resultsA five-factor model (memory, attention/executive functioning/processing speed, language, visuospatial, and motor) fit the data well (CFI = 0.979, RMSEA = 0.047) and the composite reliability of the factors ranged from .76 (visuospatial) to .97 (motor). The five-factor model was found to possess strict measurement invariance for ethnicity and language without a decrement in fit compared to a strong (scalar) invariance model (ΔCFI = .000, ΔRMSEA = .002). DISCUSSION: These results indicate that a five-factor model is suitable for estimating cognitive functioning in Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites without bias by ethnicity or language.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.