The Cognitive Telephone Screening Instrument (COGTEL): A Brief, Reliable, and Valid Tool for Capturing Interindividual Differences in Cognitive Functioning in Epidemiological and Aging Studies
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
<b><i>Aims:</i></b> The present study set out to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Cognitive Telephone Screening Instrument (COGTEL) in 2 different samples of older adults. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We assessed COGTEL in 116 older adults, with retest after 7 days to evaluate the test-retest reliability. Moreover, we assessed COGTEL in 868 older adults to evaluate convergent validity to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Test-retest reliability of the COGTEL total score was good at 0.85 (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001). Latent variable analyses revealed that COGTEL and MMSE correlated by 0.93 (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001), indicating convergent validity of the COGTEL. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The present analyses suggest COGTEL as a brief, reliable, and valid instrument for capturing interindividual differences in cognitive functioning in epidemiological and aging studies, with the advantage of covering more cognitive domains than traditional screening tools such as the MMSE, as well as differentiating between individual performance levels, in healthy 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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