MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394356262

Reliability and validity of Chinese version of Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire in patients with Alzheimer' s disease

2010· article· en· W2394356262 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ma Wan, Xin Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueZhongguo xinli weisheng zazhi · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuttman scalePsychologyCronbach's alphaDistressClinical Dementia RatingRating scaleReliability (semiconductor)DementiaClinical psychologyDiseaseMontreal Cognitive AssessmentPsychiatryPsychometricsCognitionMedicineInternal medicineCognitive impairmentDevelopmental psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective:To evaluate the reliability and validity of Chinese version of Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire(NPI-Q).Methods:Fifty-one patients meeting criteria of probable Alzheimer' s disease(AD)of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer' s disease and Related Disorders Association(NINCDS-ADRDA)were studied.All patients were drawn from database of Dementia Care and Research Center at Peking University Institute of Mental Health.Each subject was administered with the Mini-mental Status Examination(MMSE),Activities of Daily Living(ADL),Alzheimer' s disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive portion(ADAS-Cog),and Neuropsychiatric Inventory(NPI).The informants completed rating with NPI-Q.Sixteen subjects were retested at 3 months after initial assessment.Results:(1)Reliability.The coefficient of inter-item consistency(Cronbach' s α)was 0.851,and the Guttman split-half reliability was 0.825.The test-retest reliability of NPI-Q total score inter-rater reliability(ICC)was 0.860(P0.01),and test-retest reliability of NPI-Q total distress score ICC was 0.480(P0.05).(2)Validity.The item scores of severity of NPI-Q were correlated with each other(r=0.01~0.97),and with total score of NPI-Q significantly(r=0.33~0.87,P0.05).The item scores of distress of NPI-Q were correlated with each other(r=0.05~0.72),and with total score of distress significantly(r=0.47~0.90,P0.01).For all items,the scores of distress were correlated with scores of severity significantly(r=0.60~0.86,P0.01).The total score of NPI-Q severity was correlated with total score of distress(r=0.78,P0.01).The total score of NPI-Q severity was negatively associated with total score of MMSE(r=-0.39,P0.01),positively with total score of ADL,ADAS-cog,NPI and NPI-distress(r=0.47-0.82,P0.01).The total score of NPI-Q distress was negatively associated with that of MMSE(r=-0.32,P0.05),and positively correlated with ADL,ADAS-Cog,NPI,and NPI-distress (r=0.29~0.68,P0.05).NPI-Q consisted of three factors counting for 62.23% of variance,including psychosis,impaired affect and frontal function.Conclusion:The Chinese version of NPI-Q has good reliability and validity,worthy of extensive application.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZhongguo xinli weisheng zazhiSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207