Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37540380›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2023

Measuring the reliability of proxy respondents in behavioural assessments: an open question.

Antonella Lopez, Luigi Tinella, Alessandro Caffò, Andrea Bosco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Informal carers' perception on perspective taking when reporting as proxies about someone else's health.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Proxy reporting in health: a scoping review of instructions, perspectives, and reporting experiences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Antonella LopezFaculty of Law, Giustino Fortunato University, Via Delcogliano, 12, Benevento, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3717-1677
Luigi TinellaDepartment of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, Via Crisanzio 42, 70122, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4296-5233
Alessandro CaffòDepartment of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, Via Crisanzio 42, 70122, Bari, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3973-8152
Andrea BoscoDepartment of Educational Sciences, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari, Via Crisanzio 42, 70122, Bari, Italy. andrea.bosco@uniba.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9458-3993

Funding

A-WAND! Strengthening the skills of self-monitoring and preventing the risk of accidents in and outdoors in a population of elderly people in the south of Italy". Action Founded by Research for Innovation (REFIN)- POR Puglia FESR FSE 2014-2020 - Asse X - A 8C40CDAA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn behavioural assessment, information can be gathered from internally referenced self-reports or from proxy informants.

aimsThis study aimed to fine-tune a brief but reliable method for evaluating the proxy accuracy in cases where responses obtained from adult and older adults' patient cannot be considered reliable.

methodsWe generated a set of items reflecting both overt and covert behaviours related to the basic instrumental activities of daily living. The psychometric properties of the content, factorial, and criterium validity of these items were then checked. The Proxy Reliability Questionnaire-ProRe was created. We tested the frequency of "I don't know" responses as a measure of proxy reliability in a sample of healthy older adults and their proxies, and in a second sample of proxy respondents who answered questions about their parents.

resultsAs expected, response precision was lower for items characterizing covert behaviours; items about covert compared to overt behaviours generated more "I don't know" answers. Proxies provided less "I don't know" responses when evaluating the parent, they claimed they knew better. Moreover, we tried to validate our approach using response confidence. Encouragingly, these results also showed differences in the expected direction in confidence between overt and covert behaviours.

conclusionsThe present study encourages clinicians/researchers to how well the proxy the patient know each other, the tendency of proxies to exhibit, for example, response bias when responding to questions about patients' covert behaviours, and more importantly, the reliability of informants in providing a clinical assessment of neurocognitive diseases associated with aging.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingQuality of LifeAgedHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesAgeingMeasurement reliabilityObserversProxy informantPsychometricsRaters

Identifiers

PMID37540380
PMCPMC10520105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.