Factor Structure and Validity of Composite Scores Resulting From a Computerized Cognitive Test Battery in Healthy Adults and Patients With Primary Brain Tumors.

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
S M Boelders, E Butterbrod, L V D E Vogelsmeier, M M Sitskoorn, L L Ong, K Gehring
{"title":"Factor Structure and Validity of Composite Scores Resulting From a Computerized Cognitive Test Battery in Healthy Adults and Patients With Primary Brain Tumors.","authors":"S M Boelders, E Butterbrod, L V D E Vogelsmeier, M M Sitskoorn, L L Ong, K Gehring","doi":"10.1177/10731911241289987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Computerized neuropsychological test batteries (CNTs), such as Central Nervous System Vital Signs (CNS VS), are increasingly used for measuring cognitive functioning, but empirical evidence of how they measure cognition is scarce. We investigated the factor structure of CNS VS using exploratory factor analyses four samples: healthy adults (<i>n</i> = 169), patients with meningioma (392), low-grade glioma (99), and high-grade glioma (247). We tested model fit and investigated measurement invariance. Differences in factor interpretation existed between healthy participants and patients. Factor structures among patient groups were approximately the same but differed in non-zero loadings. Overall, factor structures largely did not support the \"clinical domains\" provided by CNS VS for clinical interpretation. Confirmatory models did not have a good fit, and measurement invariance could not be established. Our results indicate that (weighted) sum scores of CNS VS results may lack validity. We recommend researchers and clinicians to use scores on individual test measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"10731911241289987"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241289987","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Computerized neuropsychological test batteries (CNTs), such as Central Nervous System Vital Signs (CNS VS), are increasingly used for measuring cognitive functioning, but empirical evidence of how they measure cognition is scarce. We investigated the factor structure of CNS VS using exploratory factor analyses four samples: healthy adults (n = 169), patients with meningioma (392), low-grade glioma (99), and high-grade glioma (247). We tested model fit and investigated measurement invariance. Differences in factor interpretation existed between healthy participants and patients. Factor structures among patient groups were approximately the same but differed in non-zero loadings. Overall, factor structures largely did not support the "clinical domains" provided by CNS VS for clinical interpretation. Confirmatory models did not have a good fit, and measurement invariance could not be established. Our results indicate that (weighted) sum scores of CNS VS results may lack validity. We recommend researchers and clinicians to use scores on individual test measures.

健康成人和原发性脑肿瘤患者计算机认知测试组合综合评分的因子结构和有效性
中枢神经系统生命体征(CNS Vital Signs)等计算机化神经心理测试(CNT)越来越多地被用于测量认知功能,但有关它们如何测量认知的实证证据却很少。我们使用探索性因子分析研究了中枢神经系统生命体征的因子结构,包括四个样本:健康成人(169 人)、脑膜瘤患者(392 人)、低级别胶质瘤患者(99 人)和高级别胶质瘤患者(247 人)。我们测试了模型的拟合度,并研究了测量不变性。健康参与者和患者之间的因子解释存在差异。患者组之间的因子结构大致相同,但在非零负荷方面存在差异。总体而言,因子结构在很大程度上不支持 CNS VS 为临床解释提供的 "临床领域"。确认模型的拟合效果不佳,无法建立测量不变性。我们的结果表明,CNS VS 结果的(加权)总分可能缺乏有效性。我们建议研究人员和临床医生使用单项测试的分数。
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
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
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