Preliminary Reliability and Validity of the Iranian Computerized Version of Memory Tasks of the Betula Study.
Aging
Cross-sectional
Education
Iran
Memory
Journal
Basic and clinical neuroscience
ISSN: 2008-126X
Titre abrégé: Basic Clin Neurosci
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 101575211
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
18
09
2018
revised:
28
09
2018
accepted:
31
12
2018
entrez:
22
2
2021
pubmed:
23
2
2021
medline:
23
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of an Iranian computerized memory battery modeled after the Betula study. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of an Iranian computerized memory battery modeled after the Betula study ( Nilsson et al., 1997). The researchers developed this battery as an assessment tool in the Sepidar prospective cohort study. One hundred and ninety-nine participants aged 19-83 years were tested extensively on different aspects of memory. Exploratory factor analysis of the data demonstrated factors similar to those reported by the Betula study. The authors succeeded to converge the cross-sectional findings of the study and the data from longitudinal studies of memory aging by correcting possible cohort effects. Investigating age differences in episodic and semantic memory factor scores corrected by education and socioeconomic status revealed no significant difference between younger and older adults before ages 53 to 60, though linear age-related declines existed thereafter. The results support the reliability and construct validity of this computerized battery for memory assessment in Iranian adults.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33613892
doi: 10.32598/bcn.9.10.105
pii: BCN-11-535
pmc: PMC7878035
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
535-548Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020 Iranian Neuroscience Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Références
Cortex. 2007 Oct;43(7):889-97
pubmed: 17941347
Gerontology. 2000 May-Jun;46(3):163-77
pubmed: 10754375
Psychol Aging. 1996 Dec;11(4):621-37
pubmed: 9000294
Psychol Aging. 2005 Mar;20(1):3-18
pubmed: 15769210
Psychol Sci. 2004 Mar;15(3):155-63
pubmed: 15016286
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1987 Oct;13(4):531-41
pubmed: 2959737
Psychol Aging. 2003 Dec;18(4):807-22
pubmed: 14692866
J Gerontol. 1991 Jan;46(1):P22-30
pubmed: 1986041
Neuroimage. 2013 Dec;83:450-7
pubmed: 23796547
Neuropsychology. 2002 Jan;16(1):65-73
pubmed: 11853358
Neurobiol Aging. 2009 Apr;30(4):521-4; discussion 530-3
pubmed: 19285194
BMJ. 2012 Jan 05;344:d7622
pubmed: 22223828
Front Neuroinform. 2009 Jan 15;2:10
pubmed: 19198666
Top Cogn Sci. 2014 Jan;6(1):5-42
pubmed: 24421073
Neuropsychology. 2005 Jul;19(4):532-545
pubmed: 16060828
Scand J Psychol. 2008 Apr;49(2):93-109
pubmed: 18352979
Neurobiol Aging. 2009 Apr;30(4):507-14
pubmed: 19231028
Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2007 May;14(3):257-73
pubmed: 17453560
Psychol Aging. 1997 Sep;12(3):503-13
pubmed: 9308097
Psychol Aging. 2015 Sep;30(3):669-74
pubmed: 25985326
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002 Nov;26(7):859-67
pubmed: 12470698
Scand J Psychol. 2003 Sep;44(4):355-61
pubmed: 12887557
Psychol Bull. 1955 Jul;52(4):281-302
pubmed: 13245896
Psychol Aging. 1988 Dec;3(4):358-66
pubmed: 3268280
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1986 Jan;8(1):62-74
pubmed: 3944245
Nat Rev Neurosci. 2004 Feb;5(2):87-96
pubmed: 14735112
Gerontology. 2006;52(5):314-23
pubmed: 16974103