Systematic Evaluation of Cognitive Self-Report Measures

Based on our review of the SCD literature, considerations of relevance to the field, and feasibility, we investigate the following ten issues through descriptive and content analysis of SCD-I Working Group measures: (1) number of self-report measures used by participating working group studies; (2) origin of instruments and mode of administration; (3) format and range of response options; (4) timeframe referenced by the items; (5) prevalence of items related to specific cognitive domains; (6) prevalence of items tapping cognitive ability/disability-impairment (and referents of frequency, severity, and impact) versus change or decline (and referents of temporal and atemporal); (7) item specificity and complexity; (8) overlap in measures used by working groups; (9) most commonly occurring items; and (10) considerations driving measure selection and the grouping of questionnaires within a given study. Coding of cognitive self-report items occurred prior to data analysis for research issues 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10. For all coding procedures, working group member LAR carried out the initial coding. Two additional expert raters (working group members CMS and SAMS) subsequently identified items that they considered to be miscoded. Items in dispute were then reviewed and discussed until consensus was reached, occasionally after discussing disputed items with working group member PKC.

Partial Protocol Preview
This section provides a glimpse into the protocol.
The remaining content is hidden due to licensing restrictions, but the full text is available at the following link: Access Free Full Text.

Rabin L.A., Smart C.M., Crane P.K., Amariglio R.E., Berman L.M., Boada M., Buckley R.F., Chételat G., Dubois B., Ellis K.A., Gifford K.A., Jefferson A.L., Jessen F., Katz M.J., Lipton R.B., Luck T., Maruff P., Mielke M.M., Molinuevo J.L., Naeem F., Perrotin A., Petersen R.C., Rami L., Reisberg B., Rentz D.M., Riedel-Heller S.G., Risacher S.L., Rodriguez O., Sachdev P.S., Saykin A.J., Slavin M.J., Snitz B.E., Sperling R.A., Tandetnik C., van der Flier W.M., Wagner M., Wolfsgruber S, & Sikkes S.A. (2015). Subjective Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: An Overview of Self-Report Measures Used Across 19 International Research Studies. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 48(0 1), S63-S86.

Publication 2015

Cognitive Cognitive impairment Disability Sams

Corresponding Organization : Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis

Other organizations : University of Victoria, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard University, Massachusetts General Hospital, Fundació ACE, UNSW Sydney, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Inserm, Université de Caen Normandie, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen, Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, Institut du Cerveau, Sorbonne Université, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, University of Cologne, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases, Leipzig University, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Consorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer, University of Pittsburgh, New York University, NYU Langone Health, Dementia Collaborative Research Centres, Délégation Paris 5, Université Paris Cité, Amsterdam Neuroscience, University of Bonn, Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc

Top 5 similar protocols

Protocol cited in 7 other protocols

Variable analysis

independent variables

Number of self-report measures used by participating working group studies
Origin of instruments and mode of administration
Format and range of response options
Timeframe referenced by the items
Prevalence of items related to specific cognitive domains
Prevalence of items tapping cognitive ability/disability-impairment (and referents of frequency, severity, and impact) versus change or decline (and referents of temporal and atemporal)
Item specificity and complexity
Overlap in measures used by working groups
Most commonly occurring items
Considerations driving measure selection and the grouping of questionnaires within a given study

dependent variables

not explicitly mentioned

control variables

not explicitly mentioned

controls

None specified
None specified

Annotations

Based on most similar protocols

Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.

As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!