ArticlePloS one2023
Norwegian version of the Edinburgh cognitive and behavioural ALS screen: Construct validity, internal consistency, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How much habituation is enough? An R application for ad hoc content-related limits of acceptance in behavioral research.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Early cognitive decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and its relation to driving: an observational study.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch collaboration highlight a need for validated tests in other languages than English. Translation and culture adjustments may threaten essential features of the original instrument.
objectiveTo assess the internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the Norwegian version of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Screen (ECAS-N).
methodsPerformance of 71 subjects with ALS, 85 healthy controls (HC) and 6 controls with Alzheimer's disease (AD) were assessed with the ECAS-N. Test-retest interval was four months. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha; reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Cohen's kappa, and Bland Altman plot. Five hypothesis, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) screen, was evaluated for construct validity.
resultsECAS-N total score produced a Cronbach's alpha of 0.65, had excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.99) and acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.73). Construct validity analysis suggested valid use of the ECAS-N to distinguish people with ALS-specific cognitive impairment from HC (p = 0.001) and those with AD (p = 0.002). The MoCA and ECAS-N were moderately correlated (r = 0.53).
conclusionThe ECAS-N has potential to be used by different testers in clinical practice and research to screen patients with ALS who speak Norwegian and for documenting cognitive impairment over time.
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.