Psychometric reliability, validity, and generalizability of 3MSE scores among American Indian adults: the Strong Heart Study.

IF 2.6 4区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1017/S1355617723011438
Astrid M Suchy-Dicey, Thao T Vo, Kyra Oziel, Dedra S Buchwald, Lonnie A Nelson, Steven P Verney, Brian F French
{"title":"Psychometric reliability, validity, and generalizability of 3MSE scores among American Indian adults: the Strong Heart Study.","authors":"Astrid M Suchy-Dicey, Thao T Vo, Kyra Oziel, Dedra S Buchwald, Lonnie A Nelson, Steven P Verney, Brian F French","doi":"10.1017/S1355617723011438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE) is often used to screen for dementia, but little is known about psychometric validity in American Indians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We recruited 818 American Indians aged 65-95 for 3MSE examinations in 2010-2013; 403 returned for a repeat examination in 2017-2019. Analyses included standard psychometrics inferences for interpretation, generalizability, and extrapolation: factor analysis; internal consistency-reliability; test-retest score stability; multiple indicator multiple cause structural equation models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This cohort was mean age 73, majority female, mean 12 years education, and majority bilingual. The 4-factor and 2nd-order models fit best, with subfactors for orientation and visuo-construction (OVC), language and executive functioning (LEF), psychomotor and working memory (PMWM), verbal and episodic memory (VEM). Factor structure was supported for both research and clinical interpretation, and factor loadings were moderate to high. Scores were generally consistent over mean 7 years. Younger participants performed better in overall scores, but not in individual factors. Males performed better on OVC and LEF, females better on PMWM. Those with more education performed better on LEF and worse on OVC; the converse was true for bilinguals. All differences were significant, but small.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings support use of 3MSE for individual interpretation in clinic and research among American Indians, with moderate consistency, stability, reliability over time. Observed extrapolations across age, sex, education, and bilingual groups suggest some important contextual differences may exist.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723011438","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MSE) is often used to screen for dementia, but little is known about psychometric validity in American Indians.

Methods: We recruited 818 American Indians aged 65-95 for 3MSE examinations in 2010-2013; 403 returned for a repeat examination in 2017-2019. Analyses included standard psychometrics inferences for interpretation, generalizability, and extrapolation: factor analysis; internal consistency-reliability; test-retest score stability; multiple indicator multiple cause structural equation models.

Results: This cohort was mean age 73, majority female, mean 12 years education, and majority bilingual. The 4-factor and 2nd-order models fit best, with subfactors for orientation and visuo-construction (OVC), language and executive functioning (LEF), psychomotor and working memory (PMWM), verbal and episodic memory (VEM). Factor structure was supported for both research and clinical interpretation, and factor loadings were moderate to high. Scores were generally consistent over mean 7 years. Younger participants performed better in overall scores, but not in individual factors. Males performed better on OVC and LEF, females better on PMWM. Those with more education performed better on LEF and worse on OVC; the converse was true for bilinguals. All differences were significant, but small.

Conclusion: These findings support use of 3MSE for individual interpretation in clinic and research among American Indians, with moderate consistency, stability, reliability over time. Observed extrapolations across age, sex, education, and bilingual groups suggest some important contextual differences may exist.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国印第安成年人 3MSE 分数的心理测量可靠性、有效性和普遍性:强心研究。
目的改良版迷你精神状态检查(3MSE)常用于筛查痴呆症,但对美国印第安人的心理测量有效性却知之甚少:2010-2013年,我们招募了818名65-95岁的美国印第安人进行3MSE检查;2017-2019年,有403名印第安人再次接受检查。分析包括用于解释、推广和外推的标准心理测量学推论:因子分析;内部一致性-可靠性;测试-再测得分稳定性;多指标多原因结构方程模型:研究对象的平均年龄为 73 岁,多数为女性,平均受教育年限为 12 年,多数会说两种语言。4因素和二阶模型的拟合效果最佳,子因素包括定向和视觉建构(OVC)、语言和执行功能(LEF)、精神运动和工作记忆(PMWM)、言语和历时记忆(VEM)。研究和临床解释均支持因子结构,因子载荷为中等至高等。平均 7 年的得分基本一致。年龄较小的参与者在总分上表现较好,但在单个因子上表现不佳。男性在 OVC 和 LEF 方面表现较好,女性在 PMWM 方面表现较好。受教育程度较高的人在 LEF 方面表现较好,而在 OVC 方面表现较差;双语者的情况正好相反。所有差异均有意义,但很小:这些研究结果支持在美国印第安人的临床和研究中使用 3MSE 进行个体解释,其一致性、稳定性和可靠性随着时间的推移处于中等水平。对不同年龄、性别、教育程度和双语群体的观察推断表明,可能存在一些重要的背景差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
185
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate. To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.
期刊最新文献
Adherence to high-frequency ecological momentary assessment in persons with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. The Grenada Learning and Memory Scale: Psychometric features and normative data in Caribbean preschool children. Beyond brain injury: Examining the neuropsychological and psychosocial sequelae of post-traumatic epilepsy. Psychometric and adherence considerations for high-frequency, smartphone-based cognitive screening protocols in older adults. Comparing and linking the Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment in the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1