Dataset Information

You Say Tomato, I Say Radish: Can Brief Cognitive Assessments in the U.S. Health Retirement Study Be Harmonized With Its International Partner Studies?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To characterize the extent to which brief cognitive assessments administered in the population-representative U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and its International Partner Studies can be considered to be measuring a single, unidimensional latent cognitive function construct.

Methods

Cognitive function assessments were administered in face-to-face interviews in 12 studies in 26 countries (N = 155,690), including the U.S. HRS and selected International Partner Studies. We used the time point of the first cognitive assessment for each study to minimize differential practice effects across studies and documented cognitive test item coverage across studies. Using confirmatory factor analysis models, we estimated single-factor general cognitive function models and bifactor models representing memory-specific and nonmemory-specific cognitive domains for each study. We evaluated model fits and factor loadings across studies.

Results

Despite relatively sparse and inconsistent cognitive item coverage across studies, all studies had some cognitive test items in common with other studies. In all studies, the bifactor models with a memory-specific domain fit better than single-factor general cognitive function models. The data fit the models at reasonable thresholds for single-factor models in 6 of the 12 studies and for the bifactor models in all 12 of the 12 studies.

Discussion

The cognitive assessments in the U.S. HRS and its International Partner Studies reflect comparable underlying cognitive constructs. We discuss the assumptions underlying our methods, present alternatives, and future directions for cross-national harmonization of cognitive aging data.

SUBMITTER: Kobayashi LC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557836 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To understand how routine bedside clinical neurologic assessments are performed in U.S. PICUs. DESIGN:Electronic survey. SETTING:Academic PICUs throughout the United States. SUBJECTS:Faculty representatives from PICUs throughout the United States. INTERVENTIONS:None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We surveyed how routine bedside neurologic assessments are reported to be performed in U.S. PICUs and the attitudes of respondents on the utility of these assessments. The survey contained questions regarding 1) components of neurologic assessments; 2) frequency of neurologic assessments; 3) documentation and communication of changes in neurologic assessment; and 4) optimization of neurologic assessments. Surveys were received from 64 of 67 institutions (96%). Glasgow Coma Scale and pupillary reflex were the most commonly reported assessments (80% and 92% of institutions, respectively). For patients with acute brain injury, 95% of institutions performed neurologic assessments hourly although assessment frequency was more variable for patients at low risk of developing brain injury and those at high risk for brain injury, but without overt injury. In 73% of institutions, any change detected on routine neuroassessment was communicated to providers, whereas in 27%, communication depended on the severity or degree of neurologic decline. Seventy percent of respondents thought that their current practice for assessing and monitoring neurologic status was suboptimal. Only 57% felt that the Glasgow Coma Scale was a valuable tool for the serial assessment of neurologic function in the ICU. Ninety-two percent felt that a standardized approach to assessing and documenting preillness neurologic function would be valuable. CONCLUSIONS:Routine neurologic assessments are reported to be conducted in nearly all academic PICUs in the United States with fellowship training programs although the content, frequency, and triggers for communication vary between institutions. Most physicians felt that the current paradigms for neurologic assessments are suboptimal. These data suggest that optimizing and standardizing routine bedside nursing neurologic assessments may be warranted.