Back

Validation of dementia care-related scales among informal caregivers of Latinos with dementia or mild cognitive impairment

Perales-Puchalt, J.; Checa, I.; Espejo, B.; Martin Carbonell, M. d. l. C.; Fracachan-Cabrera, M.; Baker, C.; Ramirez-Mantilla, M.; Mendez-Asaro, P.; Zimmer, M.; Williams, K.; Greiner, K. A.; Zaudke, J.; Arreaza, H.; Velez-Uribe, I.; Moore, H. P.; Sepulveda-Rivera, V.; Meyer, K.; Benton, D.; Kittle, K.; Gillen, L.; Burns, J. M.

2024-08-29 neurology
10.1101/2024.08.28.24312743 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo test the psychometric properties of several dementia care-related scales among Latinos in the US. DesignWe leveraged secondary baseline data from a one-arm mHealth trial on dementia caregiver support. We included 100 responses for caregiver-focused scales and 88 responses for care recipient-focused scales. Scales included the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire Severity and Distress scales, six-item Zarit Burden Inventory, Ten-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Geriatric Depression Inventory, Quality of Life in Alzheimers Disease, and Single-item Satisfaction With Life Scale. We calculated concurrent validity using Pearson and Spearman correlations and expected correlations amongst all variables in line with the Stress Process Framework. We calculated internal consistency reliability using Cronbachs alpha. ResultsAll concurrent validity correlations followed the expected directionality, with 19/21 inter-scale correlations in the total sample reaching statistical significance (p<0.05), and 17/21 reaching at least a low correlation (0.3). Cronbachs alpha ranged from 0.832 to 0.879 in all scales in the total sample. ConclusionThe English and Spanish caregiver-administered scales tested in this manuscript have good psychometric properties. Clinical ImplicationsThe dementia care-related scales are now appropriately available for use among US Latinos in research and clinical contexts.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.