Assessment of anxiety in older adults: A systematic review of commonly used measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The authors set out to systematically review the research literature in order to identify the anxiety measures most commonly used in the assessment of older adults. Once identified, the literature was reviewed to determine the extent to which these instruments had age-relevant norms and psychometric data supporting their use with older adults. METHOD: Literature searches were conducted in PsycINFO and PubMed to identify research articles in which anxiety measures were completed by older adults. After screening for suitability, a total of 213 articles were reviewed to determine the most commonly used anxiety measures with older adults to examine the psychometric properties of these instruments and to evaluate whether the instruments are appropriate for use with older adults. RESULTS: A total of 91 different anxiety measures were used in the 213 included articles. Twelve anxiety measures were most commonly used in the literature and of those three were specifically developed for older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Of the most commonly used measures, the majority lacked sufficient evidence to warrant their use with older adults. Based on psychometric evidence, three measures (Beck Anxiety Inventory, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, and Geriatric Mental Status Examination) showed psychometric properties sufficient to justify the use of these instruments when assessing anxiety in older adults. In addition, two measures developed specifically for older adults (Worry Scale and Geriatric Anxiety Inventory) were also found to be appropriate for use with older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it