ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Chinese version of the short version of the Cognitive Reserve Index Questionnaire (s-CRIq): a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessing cognitive reserve (CR) is crucial for identifying the risk of cognitive impairment, predicting disease progression, and informing targeted interventions. However, the Cognitive Reserve Index Questionnaire (CRIq), a widely used tool for evaluating CR, has practical limitations including its length, complex collection requiring interviewer involvement, and time burdens for participants and interviewers. To address these, a self-administered short-form version (s-CRIq) was updated in 2023, which retains the original scale’s core structure and dimensions while significantly improving convenience and efficiency. This study aimed to develop a Chinese version of the s-CRIq (s-CRIq-C) through rigorous cross-cultural adaptation and evaluate its psychometric properties.
methodsFollowed Beaton’s guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation to translate the s-CRIq-C. Seven experts evaluated the content validity index and translation validity index. Independent samples t-tests were used to assess gender differences, while one-way ANOVA with post-hoc analyses was employed to examine age group differences. To verify the construct validity of the s-CRIq-C, Pearson correlation analysis was performed to assess the relationship between the total scale score and the three dimension scores. Concurrent validity was tested using the full-length CRIq as the criterion to further confirm its construct validity. Reliability was evaluated through internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
resultsA total of 315 healthy adult participants were included. The mean total CRI score was 94.28 ± 14.94, indicating a medium level of CRI. The total CRI score showed strong correlations with the three dimensions—CRI-Education (r = 0.818), CRI-WorkingActivity (r = 0.812), and CRI-LeisureTime (r = 0.819)—while moderate to weak correlations were observed among the dimensions themselves. Concurrent validity analysis revealed a high correlation between the s-CRIq-C and the long version of CRIq (r = 0.932, p < 0.001). The s-CRIq-C exhibited good reliability, with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.777, McDonald’s ω coefficient of 0.780, and test-retest reliability of 0.968.
conclusionsThe s-CRIq-C demonstrated good reliability and validity, supporting its utility as a brief and dependable tool for assessing CR in both clinical and scientific investigations.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry with the registration number ChiCTR2500104640. Registered on 20 June 2025.
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.