Dataset Information

Self-reported cognitive scales in a US National Survey: reliability, validity, and preliminary evidence for associations with alcohol and drug use.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate relationships between measures of cognitive functioning and alcohol or drug use among adults (? 18 years) in the US general population.Two cognitive scales were created based on dimensionality and reliability of self-reported Executive Function Index items. Relationships between the two scales and validators were evaluated. Associations between the cognitive scales and past-year frequency of alcohol or drug use were estimated with adjusted odds ratios (aOR).United States, using the 2012-13 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III, a nationally representative adult sample selected by multi-stage probability sampling.36?085 respondents.Past-year substance use outcome variables categorized binge drinking, marijuana, cocaine, opioid, sedative/tranquilizer and stimulant use as frequent (at least weekly to daily), infrequent (any to two to three times/month) or no use, assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disabilities Interview Schedule-5. Key predictors were the two cognitive scales. Construct validators included education and functional impairment. Covariates included age, gender, income and race/ethnicity.Nine cognitive items fitted a two-factor model (comparative fit index = 0.973): attention (five items) and executive functioning (four items). Both scales were associated positively with higher education (Ps < 0.001) and negatively with functional impairment (Ps < 0.001), demonstrating construct validity. Poorer attention was associated with frequent and infrequent binge drinking and use of drugs [aOR range = 1.07 (binge drinking) to 1.72 (stimulants), Ps ? 0.01]. Poorer executive functioning was associated with frequent binge drinking and use of drugs [aOR range = 1.22 (binge drinking) to 2.03 (cocaine), Ps < 0.001] and infrequent use of all drugs [aOR range = 1.19 (marijuana) to 1.63 (cocaine), Ps < 0.001].Impairments in attention and executive functioning are positively associated with substance use in the US general population.

SUBMITTER: Aharonovich E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5673586 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Self-reported cognitive scales in a US National Survey: reliability, validity, and preliminary evidence for associations with alcohol and drug use.

Aharonovich Efrat E Shmulewitz Dvora D Wall Melanie M MM Grant Bridget F BF Hasin Deborah S DS

Addiction (Abingdon, England) 20170731 12

<h4>Aims</h4>To evaluate relationships between measures of cognitive functioning and alcohol or drug use among adults (≥ 18 years) in the US general population.<h4>Design</h4>Two cognitive scales were created based on dimensionality and reliability of self-reported Executive Function Index items. Relationships between the two scales and validators were evaluated. Associations between the cognitive scales and past-year frequency of alcohol or drug use were estimated with adjusted odds ratios (aOR ...[more]

PMID: 28623859

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Cognitive Scale for Functional Bowel Disorders (CS-FBD) and Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Behavioral Responses Questionnaire (IBS-BRQ) are a useful measures to assess cognitive-behavioral aspects in individuals with IBS. This study aimed to confirm the reliability and validity of the Japanese versions of the CS-FBD (CS-FBD-J) and IBS-BRQ (IBS-BRQ-J).MethodsParticipants comprised 192 students and 22 outpatients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). There were 76 students who met the diagnostic criteria for IBS and two students who received treatment for IBS. Participants completed questionnaires containing the CS-FBD-J, IBS Severity Index (IBS-SI), Visceral Sensitivity Index (VSI), 24-item Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS-24), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS).ResultsOur exploratory factor analysis revealed that the CS-FBD-J had a unidimensional factor structure and that the factor loadings for two of the 25 items were less than 0.4. The IBS-BRQ-J had a two-factor structure, and the factor loadings for eight of the 26 items were less than 0.4. The confirmatory factor analysis for the 18-item version of IBS-BRQ-J showed that the model fit indices were not sufficient. The CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J had significant, moderate correlations with the IBS-SI and VSI in the IBS and control groups. Correlation between the DAS-24 and the CS-FBD-J was not significant. The CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J were significantly correlated to the HADS and SASS (IBS-BRQ-J) only in the IBS group. The scores of CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J showed significant group differences between the IBS patient group, non-patient IBS group, and control group. The internal consistencies of the CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J were high. The item-total correlation analysis for the CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J showed that the correlations between each item and the total score were significant.ConclusionThis study confirmed the reliability and validity of the 23-item version of the CS-FBS-J and the 18-item version of the IBS-BRQ-J with the deletion of items with low factor loadings. Regarding the IBS-BRQ-J, two factor structures were confirmed (factor 1: behavior obsessed with abdominal symptoms, factor 2: avoidance of abdominal symptoms and associated difficulties) although the model fit of the structure needs further study.

Project description:Defense mechanisms are psychological factors that influence emotional distress and quality of life. There are a number of measures assessing the construct of defense mechanisms, but only few available instruments reflect the gold-standard theoretical hierarchical organization of defenses. We report on the development of a novel 30 item self-report questionnaire, the DMRS-SR-30, based on the parent instrument, the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales (DMRS). This study tested preliminary reliability and validity of the Italian version of the DMRS-SR-30. We first extracted 30 items from the DMRS Q-sort version (DMRS-Q) and adapted them for a self-reported format. We then applied the DMRS quantitative scoring algorithms to provide proportional scores for the 28 individual defenses and summary scores for seven defense levels and overall defensive functioning (ODF) scores. A dynamic interview was used for assessing participant’s defense mechanisms with the observer-rated DMRS and DMRS-Q. We examined internal consistency of the scales along with criterion, concurrent, convergent and discriminant validity among participants (N = 94) who completed the DMRS-SR-30, SCL-90, BDI, and IES-R. Results showed very good internal consistency for ODF (Cronbach’s alpha = .890) and the high adaptive defense level, whereas some subscales with few items had lower values. Correlation analyses between DMRS-SR-30 and the two DMRS-based observer-rated measures showed very good criterion and concurrent validity for ODF and moderate to high for defense levels subscales. Correlations between the DMRS-SR-30 ODF and SCL-90 GSI, BDI and IES=R (r = ?.456, r= ?.540, r = ?.402, respectively, all p <.001), indicated good convergent validity. Despite the well-known limitations of self-report methods of psychodynamic phenomena, self-report measures are highly practicable for assessing large samples. The DMRS-SR-30 is the first self-assessed measure describing the whole hierarchy of 28 defense mechanisms and providing scores for ODF, defensive categories, defense levels, and individual defenses. Preliminary examination of the Italian version of the DMRS-SR-30 showed promising results of internal consistency, criterion and concurrent validity, and convergent validity and of the measure. Further validation is needed to confirm these findings and explore other aspects of validity and reliability.

Project description:Introduction:Children with high dental anxiety display uncooperative behavior during dental procedures. Different self-assessment questionnaires are in use to estimate the prevalence of dental fear and anxiety (DFA) in children but they need to be tested for reliability and validity in different populations. Objectives:The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of two scales for the assessment of child dental fear and anxiety in a sample of Croatian children. Material and Methods:The sample comprised 202 pairs consisting of children and their mothers (97 boys and 105 girls) aged 5 - 12 years. Two scales were used to assess children's DFA: the Children's Fear Survey Schedule - Dental Subscale (CFSS-DS) and the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale - face version (MCDAS-f). The Corah's Dental Anxiety Scale (CDAS) was used in the sample of children's mothers. The average scores of cooperative children and children with behavior management problem (BMP) were compared. Results:Cooperative children displayed significantly lower CFSS-DS scores than children with BMP (M = 28. 46 vs. M = 39. 36; P < 0.001). The average MCDAS-f score was significantly higher in children with BMP than in cooperative children (M = 28. 07 vs. 20. 01; P < 0.001). The CFSS-DS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's ? = 0. 90), while internal consistency of MCDAS-f was good (? = 0. 73). The maternal CDAS showed good internal consistency (? = 0, 89). The correlations with other self-report measurements of DFS show good validity of all scales. The correlations between CFSS-DS and MCDAS-f were highly significant (r = 0.482; P < 0. 01) as well as the correlations of CFSS-DS and MCDAS-f with CDAS scores (r = 0.223; P < 0. 01 and r = 0.198; P < 0. 01, respectively. Conclusion:The obtained results suggest that both the CFSS-DS scale and the MCDAS-f scale are reliable and valid scales for measuring dental fear and anxiety in children in a sample of Croatian children. The MCDAS-f scale has shown slightly lower internal consistency but it is suitable for use in young children. In addition, the MCDAS-f scale is simple to administer.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for measuring patient experiences with general practitioners (PEQ-GP) following a national survey. SETTING:Postal survey among patients on any of 500 GPs patient lists in Norway. GPs were stratified by practice size and geographical criteria. PARTICIPANTS:4964 patients who had at least one consultation with their regular GP in the foregoing 12 months were included in the study. The patients were randomly selected after the selection of GPs. 2377 patients (49%) responded to the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The items were assessed for missing data and ceiling effects. Factor structure was assessed using exploratory factor analyses. Reliability was tested with item-total correlation, Cronbach's alpha and test-retest correlations. Item discriminant validity was tested by correlating items with all scales. Construct validity was assessed through associations of scale scores with health status, the patients' general satisfaction with the services, whether the patient had been incorrectly treated by the GP and whether the patient would recommend the GP to others. RESULTS:Item missing varied from 1.0% to 3.1%, while ceiling effects varied from 16.1% to 45.9%. The factor analyses identified three factors. Reliability statistics for scales based on these three factors, and two theoretically derived scales, showed item-total correlations ranging from 0.63 to 0.85 and Cronbach's alpha values from 0.77 to 0.93. Test-retest correlation for the five scales varied from 0.72 to 0.88. All scales had the expected association with other variables. CONCLUSIONS:The PEQ-GP has good evidence for data quality, internal consistency and construct validity. The PEQ-GP is recommended for use in local, regional and national surveys in Norway, but further studies are needed to assess the instrument's ability to detect differences over time and between different GPs.

Project description:Background: An association between gaming disorder (GD) and the symptoms of common mental disorders is unraveled yet. In this preregistered study, we quantitatively synthesized reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of GD scales to examine association between GD and other constructs. Methods: Five representative GD instruments (GAS-7, AICA, IGDT-10, Lemmens IGD-9, and IGDS9-SF) were chosen based on recommendations by the previous systematic review study to conduct correlation meta-analyses and reliability generalization. A systematic literature search was conducted through Pubmed, Proquest, Embase, and Google Scholar to identify studies that reported information on either reliability or correlation with related variables. 2,124 studies were full-text assessed as of October 2020, and 184 were quantitatively synthesized. Conventional Hedges two-level meta-analytic method was utilized. Results: The result of reliability generalization reported a mean coefficient alpha of 0.86 (95% CI = 0.85-0.87) and a mean test-retest estimate of 0.86 (95% CI = 0.81-0.89). Estimated effect sizes of correlation between GD and the variables were as follows: 0.33 with depression (k = 45; number of effect sizes), 0.29 with anxiety (k = 37), 0.30 with aggression (k = 19), -0.22 with quality of life (k = 18), 0.29 with loneliness (k = 18), 0.56 with internet addiction (k = 20), and 0.40 with game playtime (k = 53), respectively. The result of moderator analyses, funnel and forest plots, and publication bias analyses were also presented. Discussion and Conclusion: All five GD instruments have good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Relatively few studies reported the test-retest reliability. The result of correlation meta-analysis revealed that GD scores were only moderately associated with game playtime. Common psychological problems such as depression and anxiety were found to have a slightly smaller association with GD than the gaming behavior. GD scores were strongly correlated with internet addiction. Further studies should adopt a rigorous methodological procedure to unravel the bidirectional relationship between GD and other psychopathologies. Limitations: The current study did not include gray literature. The representativeness of the five tools included in the current study could be questioned. High heterogeneity is another limitation of the study. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42020219781].

Project description:BackgroundThere are no currently effective cognitive assessment tools for patients who have suffered stroke in the People's Republic of China. The Birmingham Cognitive Screen (BCoS) has been shown to be a promising tool for revealing patients' poststroke cognitive deficits in specific domains, which facilitates more individually designed rehabilitation in the long run. Hence we examined the reliability and validity of a Cantonese version BCoS in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in Guangzhou.MethodA total of 98 patients with acute ischemic stroke were assessed with the Cantonese version of the BCoS, and an additional 133 healthy individuals were recruited as controls. Apart from the BCoS, the patients also completed a number of external cognitive tests, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Albert's cancellation test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, and six gesture matching tasks. Cutoff scores for failing each subtest, ie, deficits, were computed based on the performance of the controls. The validity and reliability of the Cantonese BCoS were examined, as well as interrater and test-retest reliability. We also compared the proportions of cases being classified as deficits in controlled attention, memory, character writing, and praxis, between patients with and without spoken language impairment.ResultsAnalyses showed high test-retest reliability and agreement across independent raters on the qualitative aspects of measurement. Significant correlations were observed between the subtests of the Cantonese BCoS and the other external cognitive tests, providing evidence for convergent validity of the Cantonese BCoS. The screen was also able to generate measures of cognitive functions that were relatively uncontaminated by the presence of aphasia.ConclusionThis study suggests good reliability and validity of the Cantonese version of the BCoS. The Cantonese BCoS is a very promising tool for the detection of cognitive problems in Cantonese speakers.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need for a survey instrument to measure arthralgia (joint pain) that has been psychometrically validated in the context of existing reference instruments. We developed the 16-item Patient-Reported Arthralgia Inventory (PRAI) to measure arthralgia severity in 16 joints, in the context of a longitudinal cohort study to assess aromatase inhibitor-associated arthralgia in breast cancer survivors and arthralgia in postmenopausal women without breast cancer. We sought to evaluate the reliability and validity of the PRAI instrument in these populations, as well as to examine the relationship of patient-reported morning stiffness and arthralgia.MethodsWe administered the PRAI on paper in 294 women (94 initiating aromatase inhibitor therapy and 200 postmenopausal women without breast cancer) at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 52, as well as once in 36 women who had taken but were no longer taking aromatase inhibitor therapy.ResultsCronbach's alpha was 0.9 for internal consistency of the PRAI. Intraclass correlation coefficients of test-retest reliability were in the range of 0.87-0.96 over repeated PRAI administrations; arthralgia severity was higher in the non-cancer group at baseline than at subsequent assessments. Women with joint comorbidities tended to have higher PRAI scores than those without (estimated difference in mean scores: -0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.5, -0.2; P<0.001). The PRAI was highly correlated with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Subscale item "I have pain in my joints" (reference instrument; Spearman r range: 0.76-0.82). Greater arthralgia severity on the PRAI was also related to decreased physical function (r=-0.47, 95% CI -0.55, -0.37; P<0.001), higher pain interference (r=0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.72; P<0.001), less active performance status (estimated difference in location (-0.6, 95% CI -0.9, -0.4; P<0.001), and increased morning stiffness duration (r=0.62, 95% CI 0.54-0.69; P<0.0001).ConclusionWe conclude that the psychometric properties of the PRAI are satisfactory for measuring arthralgia severity.

Project description:UK Biobank is a health resource with data from over 500,000 adults. The cognitive assessment in UK Biobank is brief and bespoke, and is administered without supervision on a touchscreen computer. Psychometric information on the UK Biobank cognitive tests are limited. Despite the non-standard nature of these tests and the limited psychometric information, the UK Biobank cognitive data have been used in numerous scientific publications. The present study examined the validity and short-term test-retest reliability of the UK Biobank cognitive tests. A sample of 160 participants (mean age = 62.59, SD = 10.24) was recruited who completed the UK Biobank cognitive assessment and a range of well-validated cognitive tests ('reference tests'). Fifty-two participants returned 4 weeks later to repeat the UK Biobank tests. Correlations were calculated between UK Biobank tests and reference tests. Two measures of general cognitive ability were created by entering scores on the UK Biobank cognitive tests, and scores on the reference tests, respectively, into separate principal component analyses and saving scores on the first principal component. Four-week test-retest correlations were calculated for UK Biobank tests. UK Biobank cognitive tests showed a range of correlations with their respective reference tests, i.e. those tests that are thought to assess the same underlying cognitive ability (mean Pearson r = 0.53, range = 0.22 to 0.83, p≤.005). The measure of general cognitive ability based on the UK Biobank cognitive tests correlated at r = 0.83 (p < .001) with a measure of general cognitive ability created using the reference tests. Four-week test-retest reliability of the UK Biobank tests were moderate-to-high (mean Pearson r = 0.55, range = 0.40 to 0.89, p≤.003). Despite the brief, non-standard nature of the UK Biobank cognitive tests, some tests showed substantial concurrent validity and test-retest reliability. These psychometric results provide currently-lacking information on the validity of the UK Biobank cognitive tests.

Dataset Information

Self-reported cognitive scales in a US National Survey: reliability, validity, and preliminary evidence for associations with alcohol and drug use.

Publications

Self-reported cognitive scales in a US National Survey: reliability, validity, and preliminary evidence for associations with alcohol and drug use.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets