umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the cognitive dysfunction questionnaire: instrument refinement and measurement invariance across age and sex
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of applied educational science, Departement of Educational Measurement.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1442-3939
Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Radiation Sciences, Diagnostic Radiology. Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Integrative Medical Biology (IMB), Physiology.
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University and Stockholm Brain Institute, Sweden.
2012 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0036-5564, E-ISSN 1467-9450, Vol. 53, no 5, 390-400 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The study adopted CFA to investigate the factorial structure and reduce the number of items of the Cognitive Dysfunction Questionnaire (CDQ; Vestergren, Rönnlund, Nyberg, & Nilsson, 2011). The analyses were based on data for a total of 1115 participants from population based samples (mean age: 63.0 ± 14.5 years, range: 25 - 95) randomly split into a refinement (n = 569) and a cross-validation (n = 546) sample. Equivalence of the measurement and structural portions of the refined model was demonstrated across the refinement and cross-validation samples. Among competing models the best fitting and parsimonious model had a hierarchical factor structure with five first-order and one second-order general factor. The final version of the CDQ consisted of 20 items in five domains (Procedural actions, Semantic word knowledge, Face recognition, Temporal orientation and Spatial navigation). Internal consistency reliabilities were adequate for the total scale and for the subscales. Multigroup CFAs were performed and the results indicate measurement invariance across age and sex up to the scalar level. Finally, higher levels of cognitive dysfunction as reflected by CDQ scores were observed with advancing age and with deficits in general cognitive functioning as reflected by scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination. In conclusion, adoption of the final version of the CDQ appears to be a way of measuring cognitive dysfunction without administering formal cognitive tests. Future studies should apply it among clinical groups to further test its usefulness.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Vol. 53, no 5, 390-400 p.
Keyword [en]
Subjective memory, self-report measures, cognitive functioning, cognitive impairment
National Category
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified
Research subject
didactics of educational measurement; Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-45671DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2012.00970.xPubMedID: 22962857OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-45671DiVA: diva2:435966
Available from: 2011-08-22 Created: 2011-08-09 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. On the subjective–objective distinction for measures of memory and cognition: Theoretical and methodological issues in questionnaire development and validation
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On the subjective–objective distinction for measures of memory and cognition: Theoretical and methodological issues in questionnaire development and validation
2011 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The aim of this thesis was to develop a questionnaire for cognitive functioning, which could possibly be used as a screening instrument for early signs of dementia in the future. The introduction discusses the often made distinction between subjective and objective measures. A background to the four articles is provided, focussing on findings of weak relationships between self-report- and laboratory measures of memory/cognition. Studies I and II provided results and conclusions that guided instrument development and validation in Studies III and IV. All studies were based on data from participants in the Betula Prospective Cohort Study. Study I investigated predictors of scores on an established self-report instrument for memory failures (PRMQ). Candidate predictors were memory performance on laboratory tests, age, depressive symptoms, and personality traits. There was no relation to age, and test performance did not predict self-reported memory, but depressive symptoms and personality did. Given the finding of a lack of a relation to age, and a bulk of research articles claiming that memory complaints are common in the elderly or increase with age, Study II used a global rating of problems with memory, and reports of perceived causes. In contrast to Study I, problems ratings were related to age, such that increasing age meant higher severity of problems. Furthermore, perceived causes of memory problems differed across age. The elderly reported aging while the young reported stress and multitasking as primary causes. With these results as a background, the purpose of Study III was to develop a new instrument (the Cognitive Dysfunction Questionnaire - CDQ) with the explicit aim that scores should be related to laboratory test performance. A global construct of cognitive functioning with an emphasis on memory systems was adopted, and an item pool was generated. Based on exploratory principal components analysis and correlations with criterion measures (laboratory test performance), twenty items in six domains were selected. Preliminary psychometric evidence showed that the CDQ was reliable, and related to age and objective measures, but not to depressive symptoms. In Study IV, twenty additional items were constructed, and the CDQ was responded to by participants in independent samples. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the factor structure derived from Study III, and refinement was undertaken by collapse of two domains and exclusion of items. The final factor structure was cross-validated. Competing models and measurement invariance across age and sex was tested. Psychometric properties were investigated for the final 20-item version.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Umeå: Department of Applied Educational Science, 2011. 52 p.
Series
Academic dissertations at the department of Educational Measurement, ISSN 1652-9650 ; 7
Keyword
cognitive dysfunction, measurement, memory complaints, self report, subjective memory, subjective–objective
National Category
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified
Research subject
didactics of educational measurement
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-46076 (URN)978-91-7459-271-9 (ISBN)
Public defence
2011-09-30, Hörsal 1031, Norra beteendevetarhuset, Umeå Universitet, Umeå, 10:00 (Swedish)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2011-09-09 Created: 2011-08-25 Last updated: 2014-12-02Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis(584 kB)365 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 584 kBChecksum SHA-512
d9347747cb44549c8665a29121f0804ae37678af2ce72b918c245182ea47b2bd3176cbf95df13bbbf6bf5dae201434f90fa3c1462962c8372c8835e21444a0fc
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Vestergren, PeterRönnlund, MichaelNyberg, Lars
By organisation
Departement of Educational MeasurementDepartment of PsychologyDiagnostic RadiologyPhysiology
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Other Social Sciences not elsewhere specified

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 365 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 216 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf