Normative Reference Values, Reliability, and Item-Level Symptom Endorsement for the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function-Short Forms 4a, 6a and 8a.

Grant L Iverson, Jacqueline M Marsh, Eric J Connors, Douglas P Terry
{"title":"Normative Reference Values, Reliability, and Item-Level Symptom Endorsement for the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function-Short Forms 4a, 6a and 8a.","authors":"Grant L Iverson,&nbsp;Jacqueline M Marsh,&nbsp;Eric J Connors,&nbsp;Douglas P Terry","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaa128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Reliable, valid, and precise measures of perceived cognitive functioning are useful in clinical practice and research. We present normative data, internal consistency statistics, item-level symptom endorsement, and the base rates of symptoms endorsed for the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function-Short Forms.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The four-, six -, and eight-item short form of the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function scale assess subjective cognitive functioning. We stratified the normative sample from the U.S. general population (n = 1,009; 51.1% women) by gender, education, health status, self-reported history of a depression or anxiety diagnosis, and recent mental health symptoms (i.e., feeling anxious or depressed in the past week) and examined cognitive symptom reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .85 to .95 for all three forms, across all groups. Mann-Whitney U test comparisons showed that individuals with past or present mental health difficulties scored significantly lower (i.e., worse perceived cognitive functioning) on the self-report questionnaires, particularly the eight-item form (history of depression, men: p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.07; women: p < .001, d = .99; history of anxiety, men: p < .001, d = 1.06; women: p < .001, d = .98; and current mental health symptoms, men: p < .001, d = 1.38; women: p < .001, d = 1.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three short forms of the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function scale had strong internal consistency reliability, supporting its use as a reliable measure of subjective cognitive functioning. The subgroup differences in perceived cognitive functioning supported the relationship between emotional and cognitive well-being. This study is the first to present normative values and base rates for several community-dwelling subgroups, allowing for precise interpretation of these measures in clinical practice and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":" ","pages":"1341-1349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Objective: Reliable, valid, and precise measures of perceived cognitive functioning are useful in clinical practice and research. We present normative data, internal consistency statistics, item-level symptom endorsement, and the base rates of symptoms endorsed for the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function-Short Forms.

Method: The four-, six -, and eight-item short form of the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function scale assess subjective cognitive functioning. We stratified the normative sample from the U.S. general population (n = 1,009; 51.1% women) by gender, education, health status, self-reported history of a depression or anxiety diagnosis, and recent mental health symptoms (i.e., feeling anxious or depressed in the past week) and examined cognitive symptom reporting.

Results: Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach's alpha and ranged from .85 to .95 for all three forms, across all groups. Mann-Whitney U test comparisons showed that individuals with past or present mental health difficulties scored significantly lower (i.e., worse perceived cognitive functioning) on the self-report questionnaires, particularly the eight-item form (history of depression, men: p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.07; women: p < .001, d = .99; history of anxiety, men: p < .001, d = 1.06; women: p < .001, d = .98; and current mental health symptoms, men: p < .001, d = 1.38; women: p < .001, d = 1.19).

Conclusions: All three short forms of the PROMIS® v2.0 Cognitive Function scale had strong internal consistency reliability, supporting its use as a reliable measure of subjective cognitive functioning. The subgroup differences in perceived cognitive functioning supported the relationship between emotional and cognitive well-being. This study is the first to present normative values and base rates for several community-dwelling subgroups, allowing for precise interpretation of these measures in clinical practice and research.

PROMIS®v2.0认知功能简表4a、6a和8a的标准参考值、信度和项目级症状背书
目的:可靠、有效和精确的感知认知功能测量在临床实践和研究中是有用的。我们提出了规范数据,内部一致性统计,项目级症状背书,以及为PROMIS®v2.0认知功能-短表格背书的症状的基本比率。方法:采用PROMIS®v2.0认知功能量表的四项、六项和八项简短形式评估主观认知功能。我们对美国普通人群中的标准样本进行了分层(n = 1009;按性别、受教育程度、健康状况、自我报告的抑郁或焦虑诊断史以及最近的精神健康症状(即过去一周感到焦虑或抑郁)进行调查,并检查认知症状报告。结果:内部一致性使用Cronbach's alpha测量,所有组中所有三种形式的范围为0.85至0.95。曼-惠特尼U检验比较显示,过去或现在有精神健康问题的个体在自我报告问卷上得分明显较低(即感知认知功能较差),特别是八项形式(抑郁症史,男性:p)结论:PROMIS®v2.0认知功能量表的所有三种简短形式都具有很强的内部一致性信度,支持其作为主观认知功能的可靠测量。感知认知功能的亚组差异支持情绪和认知幸福感之间的关系。这项研究首次提出了几个社区居住亚组的规范性值和基本率,允许在临床实践和研究中对这些措施进行精确的解释。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信