ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Norms of the geriatric complex figure test for adults aged 65 and older in Shanxi Province: analyses of reliability and validity.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe complexity of the graphics in the Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) imposes a cognitive load on older adults, leading to the development of the simplified Geriatric Complex Figure Test (GCFT), which, however, has yet to be tested or standardized.
objectiveThis study aimed to establish normative data for the GCFT among adults aged 65 and older in Shanxi Province and to evaluate its reliability and validity.
methodsThis study adopted a cross-sectional design. A multistage, stratified, randomized cluster sampling method was used to select five communities in Shanxi Province, targeting residents aged 65 years and older. SPSS 26.0 and JASP 0.19.1.0 were used for norm development, item analysis, reliability assessment, exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) was employed to assess criterion validity.
resultsMean and percentile norms were established across subgroups based on gender, age, education level, and residential status (urban vs. rural), with no significant differences observed. The correlations between the three GCFT subtests—copying, 3-min recall, and 20-min recall—and the total score were 0.738, 0.929, and 0.920, respectively. All item-total correlations were positive and statistically significant (p < 0.001). The GCFT demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.823) and split-half reliability (coefficient = 0.806). The EFA yielded a KMO value of 0.749, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ2 = 3707.715, df = 351, p < 0.001), resulting in nine factors explaining 64.7% of the cumulative variance. The CFA indicated a good model fit (χ2/df = 1.93, CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.906, RMSEA = 0.047). Criterion validity analysis indicated a significant positive correlation between the GCFT and MMSE scores (r_partial = 0.429, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe established GCFT norms for adults aged 65 and above are representative and demonstrate good reliability and validity for assessing visuospatial and memory functions in this 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.