Do You Remember? How Caregivers Question Their Spouses Who Have Alzheimer’s Disease and the Impact on Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the types of questions caregivers use and their outcomes when conversing with their spouse with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Of particular interest was caregivers' use of yes-no and open-ended questions and the demands they make on the memory of the person with AD. It was hypothesized that communication between caregivers and their spouses would be more successful when caregivers used yes-no rather than open-ended questions; however, it was also predicted that a more positive communication outcome would occur when caregivers used open-ended questions that requested information from semantic rather than episodic memory. Eighteen caregivers and their spouses diagnosed with AD were audiotaped while they conversed for approximately 10 min on a topic of their choosing. The conversations were transcribed and coded according to the occurrence of questions, the type of question (yes-no, choice, or open-ended), the type of memory required to respond to a question (semantic or episodic), and the outcome of a response to a question (communication breakdown). The results indicated that caregivers used yes-no and open-ended questions to a similar extent, whereas episodic questions were used almost twice as frequently as semantic questions. Communication was more successful when caregivers used yes-no compared with open-ended questions and when questions placed demands on semantic rather than episodic memory. The findings from this study suggest that caregivers can reduce communication problems by avoiding the use of questions that depend on episodic memory. In addition, while yes-no questions were associated with more favorable outcomes than open-ended questions, the latter do not need to be avoided if they refer to information that draws only on semantic memory.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".