Internal consistency and reliability of the lifetime and modified current cognitive activity questionnaires and their association with cognitive performance: a six-year follow up of the Brain in Motion study.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Connor Snow, Veronica Guadagni, Gail A Eskes, Marc J Poulin, R Stewart Longman
{"title":"Internal consistency and reliability of the lifetime and modified current cognitive activity questionnaires and their association with cognitive performance: a six-year follow up of the Brain in Motion study.","authors":"Connor Snow, Veronica Guadagni, Gail A Eskes, Marc J Poulin, R Stewart Longman","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2023.2272979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive activity questionnaires could provide insight into neurocognitive reserve. The Lifetime Cognitive Activities Questionnaire (LCAQ) assesses cognitive activities at four stages of life. The Modified Current Cognitive Activities Questionnaire (CCAQ) assesses current cognitive activities. We examined the construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and stability of these questionnaires throughout the Brain in Motion (BIM) study and their relationship with cognitive performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The LCAQ, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and neuropsychological battery were administered at the initial pre-intervention and six-year follow-up. The CCAQ was administered at five timepoints. Construct validity of the CCAQ/LCAQ was assessed using proxies of cognitive engagement (educational attainment and the North American Adult Reading Test [NAART]). Cronbach alpha analysis determined internal consistency. LCAQ reliability was established by comparing the pre-intervention and six-year follow-up. CCAQ reliability was determined by comparing both pre-intervention assessments, correlations throughout BIM determined stability. A multiple linear regression investigated the associations between cognitive engagement and cognitive domains derived from a principal component analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MoCA scores at the initial pre-intervention (27.49 ± 1.46) and six-year follow up (26.53 ± 2.08). The LCAQ and CCAQ correlated with educational attainment and the NAART. The LCAQ (<i>n</i> = 266) produced an alpha of 0.90 (20 items). The CCAQ (<i>n</i> = 261) resulted in an alpha of 0.71 (25 items). LCAQ scores (<i>n</i> = 94) at the initial pre-intervention and six-year follow-up were correlated. CCAQ (<i>n</i> = 94) scores at the initial pre-intervention correlated with scores at all five other timepoints. The multiple linear regression revealed associations between the CCAQ and verbal memory/attention. The NAART was associated with processing speed, concept formation, and verbal memory/attention.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the absence of cognitive decline, these questionnaires exhibit significant construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and the CCAQ displayed stability. The NAART and CCAQ were associated with neuropsychological performance. Our findings support future use of these questionnaires and exemplify the neuroprotective role of cognitive engagement.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2272979","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cognitive activity questionnaires could provide insight into neurocognitive reserve. The Lifetime Cognitive Activities Questionnaire (LCAQ) assesses cognitive activities at four stages of life. The Modified Current Cognitive Activities Questionnaire (CCAQ) assesses current cognitive activities. We examined the construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and stability of these questionnaires throughout the Brain in Motion (BIM) study and their relationship with cognitive performance.

Methods: The LCAQ, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and neuropsychological battery were administered at the initial pre-intervention and six-year follow-up. The CCAQ was administered at five timepoints. Construct validity of the CCAQ/LCAQ was assessed using proxies of cognitive engagement (educational attainment and the North American Adult Reading Test [NAART]). Cronbach alpha analysis determined internal consistency. LCAQ reliability was established by comparing the pre-intervention and six-year follow-up. CCAQ reliability was determined by comparing both pre-intervention assessments, correlations throughout BIM determined stability. A multiple linear regression investigated the associations between cognitive engagement and cognitive domains derived from a principal component analysis.

Results: MoCA scores at the initial pre-intervention (27.49 ± 1.46) and six-year follow up (26.53 ± 2.08). The LCAQ and CCAQ correlated with educational attainment and the NAART. The LCAQ (n = 266) produced an alpha of 0.90 (20 items). The CCAQ (n = 261) resulted in an alpha of 0.71 (25 items). LCAQ scores (n = 94) at the initial pre-intervention and six-year follow-up were correlated. CCAQ (n = 94) scores at the initial pre-intervention correlated with scores at all five other timepoints. The multiple linear regression revealed associations between the CCAQ and verbal memory/attention. The NAART was associated with processing speed, concept formation, and verbal memory/attention.

Conclusions: In the absence of cognitive decline, these questionnaires exhibit significant construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and the CCAQ displayed stability. The NAART and CCAQ were associated with neuropsychological performance. Our findings support future use of these questionnaires and exemplify the neuroprotective role of cognitive engagement.

终生认知活动问卷和修改后的当前认知活动问卷的内部一致性和可靠性及其与认知表现的关系:"运动中的大脑 "研究的六年跟踪调查。
导言认知活动问卷可以帮助人们了解神经认知储备。终生认知活动问卷(LCAQ)评估人生四个阶段的认知活动。改良版当前认知活动问卷(CCAQ)评估当前的认知活动。我们研究了这些问卷在整个 "运动中的大脑"(BIM)研究中的建构有效性、内部一致性、重测可靠性和稳定性,以及它们与认知表现之间的关系:方法: 在最初的干预前和六年的随访中进行 LCAQ、蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和神经心理测试。在五个时间点进行了 CCAQ 测试。CCAQ/LCAQ的结构效度是通过认知参与度的代用指标(教育程度和北美成人阅读测试[NAART])进行评估的。Cronbach alpha 分析确定了内部一致性。LCAQ 的可靠性是通过比较干预前和六年随访来确定的。CCAQ 的可靠性是通过比较干预前的两次评估来确定的,整个 BIM 的相关性确定了稳定性。多元线性回归研究了认知参与与主成分分析得出的认知领域之间的关联:最初干预前的 MoCA 分数(27.49 ± 1.46)和六年随访的 MoCA 分数(26.53 ± 2.08)。LCAQ和CCAQ与受教育程度和NAART相关。LCAQ(n=266)的α值为0.90(20个项目)。CCAQ(n=261)的α值为 0.71(25 个项目)。最初干预前和六年随访时的 LCAQ 分数(n = 94)具有相关性。最初干预前的 CCAQ 分数(94 人)与所有其他五个时间点的分数相关。多元线性回归显示,CCAQ 与言语记忆/注意力之间存在关联。NAART 与处理速度、概念形成和言语记忆/注意力相关:结论:在认知能力没有下降的情况下,这些问卷表现出显著的建构效度、内部一致性和重测可靠性,而且 CCAQ 表现出稳定性。NAART 和 CCAQ 与神经心理学表现相关。我们的研究结果支持今后使用这些问卷,并证明了认知参与对神经的保护作用。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信