Establishing conversion of the 16-item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly scores into interval-level data across multiple samples using Rasch methodology.
Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly
Rasch analysis
cognitive changes
measurement
reliability
Journal
Psychogeriatrics : the official journal of the Japanese Psychogeriatric Society
ISSN: 1479-8301
Titre abrégé: Psychogeriatrics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101230058
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2023
May 2023
Historique:
revised:
20
01
2023
received:
14
12
2022
accepted:
25
01
2023
medline:
3
5
2023
pubmed:
14
2
2023
entrez:
13
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 16-item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE-16) is a well-validated and widely-used measure of cognitive changes (CCs) among older adults. This study aimed to use Rasch methodology to establish psychometric properties of the IQCODE-16 and validate the existing ordinal-to-interval transformation algorithms across multiple large samples. A Partial Credit Rasch model was employed to examine psychometric properties of the IQCODE-16 using data (n = 918) from two longitudinal studies of participants aged 57-99 years: the Older Australian Twins Study (n = 450) and the Canberra Longitudinal Study (n = 468), and reusing the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study (MAS) sample (n = 400). Initial analyses indicated good reliability for the IQCODE-16 (Person Separation Index range: 0.82-0.90). However, local dependency was identified between items, with several items showing misfit to the model. Replicating the existing Rasch solution could not reproduce the best Rasch model fit for all samples. Combining locally dependent items into three testlets resolved all misfit and local dependency issues and resulted in the best Rasch model fit for all samples with evidence of unidimensionality, strong reliability, and invariance across person factors. Accordingly, new ordinal-to-interval transformation algorithms were produced to convert the IQCODE-16 ordinal scores into interval data to improve the accuracy of its scores. The findings of this study support the reliability and validity of the IQCODE-16 in measuring CCs among older adults. New ordinal-to-interval conversion tables generated using samples from multiple independent datasets are more generalizable and can be used to enhance the precision of the IQCODE-16 without changing its original format. An easy-to-use converter has been made available for clinical and research use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The 16-item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE-16) is a well-validated and widely-used measure of cognitive changes (CCs) among older adults. This study aimed to use Rasch methodology to establish psychometric properties of the IQCODE-16 and validate the existing ordinal-to-interval transformation algorithms across multiple large samples.
METHODS
METHODS
A Partial Credit Rasch model was employed to examine psychometric properties of the IQCODE-16 using data (n = 918) from two longitudinal studies of participants aged 57-99 years: the Older Australian Twins Study (n = 450) and the Canberra Longitudinal Study (n = 468), and reusing the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study (MAS) sample (n = 400).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Initial analyses indicated good reliability for the IQCODE-16 (Person Separation Index range: 0.82-0.90). However, local dependency was identified between items, with several items showing misfit to the model. Replicating the existing Rasch solution could not reproduce the best Rasch model fit for all samples. Combining locally dependent items into three testlets resolved all misfit and local dependency issues and resulted in the best Rasch model fit for all samples with evidence of unidimensionality, strong reliability, and invariance across person factors. Accordingly, new ordinal-to-interval transformation algorithms were produced to convert the IQCODE-16 ordinal scores into interval data to improve the accuracy of its scores.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study support the reliability and validity of the IQCODE-16 in measuring CCs among older adults. New ordinal-to-interval conversion tables generated using samples from multiple independent datasets are more generalizable and can be used to enhance the precision of the IQCODE-16 without changing its original format. An easy-to-use converter has been made available for clinical and research use.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
411-421Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Psychogeriatrics published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Psychogeriatric Society.
Références
Crook TH, Feher EP, Larrabee GJ. Assessment of memory complaint in age-associated memory impairment: the MAC-Q. Int Psychogeriatr 1992; 4: 165-176.
Jorm AF. The Informant Questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): a review. Int Psychogeriatr 2004; 16: 275-293.
Brodaty H, Pond D, Kemp NM et al. The GPCOG: a new screening test for dementia designed for general practice. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; 50: 530-534.
Petersen RC, smith GE, Waring sC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol 1999; 56: 303-308.
Truong QC, Choo C, Numbers K et al. Applying generalizability theory to examine assessments of subjective cognitive complaints: whose reports should we rely on - participant versus informant? Int Psychogeriatr 2021: 1-11.
Numbers K, Crawford JD, Kochan NA, Draper B, Sachdev PS, Brodaty H. Participant and informant memory-specific cognitive complaints predict future decline and incident dementia: findings from the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. PloS One 2020; 15: e0232961.
Skoog I, Börjesson-Hanson A, Kern S et al. Decreasing prevalence of dementia in 85-year olds examined 22 years apart: the influence of education and stroke. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 1-8.
Mitchell A, Beaumont H, Ferguson D, Yadegarfar M, Stubbs B. Risk of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in older people with subjective memory complaints: meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2014; 130: 439-451.
Nosheny RL, Amariglio R, Sikkes SA et al. The role of dyadic cognitive report and subjective cognitive decline in early ADRD clinical research and trials: current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Alzheimer's Dement 2022; 8: e12357.
Caselli RJ, Chen K, Locke DE et al. Subjective cognitive decline: self and informant comparisons. Alzheimers Dement 2014; 10: 93-98.
Rami L, Mollica MA, García-Sanchez C et al. The subjective cognitive decline questionnaire (SCD-Q): a validation study. J Alzheimers Dis 2014; 41: 453-466.
Slavin MJ, Sachdev PS, Kochan NA et al. Predicting cognitive, functional, and diagnostic change over 4 years using baseline subjective cognitive complaints in the Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2015; 23: 906-914.
Sachdev PS, Brodaty H, Reppermund S et al. The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study (MAS): methodology and baseline medical and neuropsychiatric characteristics of an elderly epidemiological non-demented cohort of Australians aged 70-90 years. Int Psychogeriatr 2010; 22: 1248-1264.
Ponds RW, Jolles J. Memory complaints in elderly people: the role of memory abilities, metamemory, depression, and personality. Educ Gerontol 1996; 22: 341-357.
Buckley RF, Ellis KA, Ames D et al. Phenomenological characterization of memory complaints in preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease. Neuropsychology 2015; 29: 571-581.
Reid LM, MacLullich AM. Subjective memory complaints and cognitive impairment in older people. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006; 22: 471-485.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
Jorm A. A short form of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE): development and cross-validation. Psychol Med 1994; 24: 145-153.
Harrison JK, Fearon P, Noel-Storr AH, McShane R, Stott DJ, Quinn TJ. Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the diagnosis of dementia within a secondary care setting. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 3: CD010772.
Phung TKT, Chaaya M, Asmar K et al. Performance of the 16-item informant questionnaire on cognitive decline for the elderly (IQCODE) in an Arabic-speaking older population. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2015; 40: 276-289.
Truong QC, Choo C, Numbers K et al. Enhancing precision of the 16-item Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE-16) using Rasch methodology. Int Psychogeriatr 2021: 1-11.
Park MH. Informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE) for classifying cognitive dysfunction as cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia. Int Psychogeriatr 2017; 29: 1461-1467.
Perroco TR, Damin AE, Frota NA et al. Short IQCODE as a screening tool for MCI and dementia: preliminary results. Dement Neuropsychol 2008; 2: 300-304.
Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982; 47: 149-174.
Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess 2009; 13: iii, ix-x, 1-177.
Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC. Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70: 308-312.
Jamieson S. Likert scales: how to (ab) use them? Med Educ 2004; 38: 1217-1218.
Rasch G. Studies in Mathematical Psychology: I. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks paedagogiske Institut, 1960.
Lundgren-Nilsson A, Tennant A. Past and present issues in Rasch analysis: the functional independence measure (FIM™) revisited. J Rehabil Med 2011; 43: 884-891.
Medvedev ON, Krägeloh CU, Titkova EA, Siegert RJ. Rasch analysis and ordinal-to-interval conversion tables for the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale. J Health Psychol 2020; 25: 1374-1383.
Medvedev ON, Berk M, Dean OM et al. A novel way to quantify schizophrenia symptoms in clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest 2020; 51: e13398.
Merkin AG, Medvedev ON, Sachdev PS et al. New avenue for the geriatric depression scale: Rasch transformation enhances reliability of assessment. J Affect Disord 2020; 264: 7-14.
Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M. Rasch Models in Health. New York: Wiley Online Library, 2013.
Lord F, Novick M. In: Reading MA, ed. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.
Cronbach LJ, Rajaratnam N, Gleser GC. Theory of generalizability: a liberalization of reliability theory. Br J Stat Psychol 1963; 16: 137-163.
Fox CM, Jones JA. Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 1998; 45: 30-45.
Rasch G, On general laws and meaning of measurement in psychology. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 4, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1961; 321-333.
Medvedev ON, Titkova EA, Siegert RJ, Hwang YS, Krageloh CU. Evaluating short versions of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire using Rasch analysis. Mind 2018; 9: 1411-1422.
Tennant A, Conaghan PG. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care Res 2007; 57: 1358-1362.
Stucki G, Daltroy L, Katz JN, Johannesson M, Liang MH. Interpretation of change scores in ordinal clinical scales and health status measures: the whole may not equal the sum of the parts. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 711-717.
Hagquist C, Andrich D. Is the sense of coherence-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch-modelling. Personal Individ Differ 2004; 36: 955-968.
Medvedev ON, Krägeloh CU. Rasch measurement model. In: Handbook of Assessment in Mindfulness Research. Switzerland: Springer, 2022; 1-18.
Norquist JM, Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J, Jenkinson C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care 2004; 42: I25-I36.
Linacre JM. Estimation methods for Rasch measures. In: Introduction to Rasch Measurement. Minnesota: JAM Press, 2004; 25-48.
Tang WK, Wong E, Chan SS et al. The scoring scheme of the informant questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly needs revision: results of rasch analysis. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004; 18: 250-256.
Sachdev PS, Lammel A, Trollor JN et al. A comprehensive neuropsychiatric study of elderly twins: the Older Australian Twins Study. Twin Res Hum Genet 2009; 12: 573-582.
Christensen H, Mackinnon A, Jorm AF et al. The Canberra Longitudinal Study: design, aims, methodology, outcomes and recent empirical investigations. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2004; 11: 169-195.
Jorm A, Christensen H, Korten A, Jacomb P, Henderson A. Informant ratings of cognitive decline in old age: validation against change on cognitive tests over 7 to 8 years. Psychol Med 2000; 30: 981-985.
Azizan NH, Mahmud Z, Rambli A. Rasch rating scale item estimates using maximum likelihood approach: effects of sample size on the accuracy and bias of the estimates. Int J Adv Sci Technol 2020; 29: 2526-2531.
Hagell P, Westergren A. Sample size and statistical conclusions from tests of fit to the Rasch model according to the Rasch Unidimensional Measurement Model (Rumm) program in health outcome measurement. J Appl Meas 2016; 17: 416-431.
Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2030 (Beta Version for Windows) Perth. Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd., 2009.
Leung Y-Y, Png M-E, Conaghan P, Tennant A. A systematic literature review on the application of Rasch analysis in musculoskeletal disease-a special interest group report of OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 159-164.
Medvedev ON, Turner-Stokes L, Ashford S, Siegert RJ. Rasch analysis of the UK functional assessment measure in patients with complex disability after stroke. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50: 420-428.
Lundgren-Nilsson A, Jonsdottir IH, Ahlborg G, Tennant A. Construct validity of the psychological general well being index (PGWBI) in a sample of patients undergoing treatment for stress-related exhaustion: a rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013; 11: 2.
Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 2002; 3: 85-106.
Leung SO. A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. J Soc Serv Res 2011; 37: 412-421.
Medvedev ON, Siegert RJ, Kersten P, Krägeloh CU. Improving the precision of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire using a Rasch approach. Mind 2017; 8: 995-1008.