ArticleBrain and behavior2022
The reliability and validity test of subjective cognitive decline questionnaire 21 with population in a Chinese community.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Subjective cognitive decline in healthy older adults is associated with altered processing of negative versus positive feedback in a probabilistic learning task.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Prevalence and risk factors of subjective cognitive decline in older adults in Baotou, China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a short-form suboptimal health status questionnaire.The EPMA journal · 2023Article
- The reliability and validity test of subjective cognitive decline questionnaire 21 with population in a Chinese community.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubjective cognitive decline-questionnaire 9 (SCD-Q9) was developed to detect SCD complaints at risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, our previous findings indicated that its coverage might be insufficient. To test this hypothesis, we recently translated SCD-Q21.
objectiveTo examine the reliability and validity of this translated SCD-Q21 and to explore its effectiveness for discriminating MCI from controls.
methodsItem analysis was performed to understand its item discrimination and homogeneity. The Cronbach's α and Spearman-Brown's split-half coefficients were calculated to test its reliability. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value, Bartlett's sphericity test, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to examine its construct validity. The content validity was evaluated using five-grade Likert scale. Finally, the SCD-Q21 scores in MCI and controls were compared.
resultsThe difference of each item between the extreme groups was significant. The Cronbach's α coefficient was .913 and Spearman-Brown's split-half coefficient was .894. When performing holding one-out approach, the Cronbach's α coefficient ranged from .906 to .914. The KMO value was .929 and the difference of Bartlett's Sphericity test was significant. All experts scored 5 points when assessing its content. Finally, a significant difference of score was found between MCI and NC groups.
conclusionsThe reliability and validity of the SCD-Q21 are good, which may pave a way for its application in a wider Chinese-speaking population.
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.