Adaptation of the Canadian indigenous cognitive assessment in three provinces and evidence for validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Canadian Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (CICA) tool is an innovative culturally‐grounded dementia case finding tool. Currently, dementia is underdiagnosed and when diagnosis occurs it is at later stages in Indigenous populations in Canada when compared to the general population; a trend documented in Indigenous populations beyond Canada, including Australia and New Zealand. As communities and health systems prepare for rapidly aging Indigenous populations with high rates of multiple chronic conditions, the need for an accurate, reliable dementia case‐finding tool in Canada is critically needed to inform necessary supports and services. Method An interdisciplinary, international team composed of researchers and Indigenous community partners led the development of the CICA. The CICA is a community‐based adaptation of the Kimberley Indigenous Cognitive Assessment (KICA) tool, which is a validated dementia screening assessment that was originally developed with Indigenous populations in Western Australia. To adapt the KICA for Canadian contexts, we undertook iterative and community‐specific processes of translation, adaptation, and piloting before we conducted reliability and validity testing in three different sites: Manitoulin Island, Ontario, which is home to seven First Nations communities; an urban Indigenous population in Calgary, Alberta; and File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council, Saskatchewan, which serves 11 First Nations communities. The adaptation process was community‐driven in each site and integrated both Indigenous community knowledge and trauma‐informed approaches to cognitive assessment. The intersections of culture, geography and colonial trauma were explored across these diverse Indigenous communities. Result The resulting CICA adaptations were scored out of a possible 39 points and took approximately 15 minutes to administer. The CICA assessed 11 domains of cognition including orientation, recognition and naming, registration, verbal comprehension, verbal fluency, recall, visual naming frontal/executive functioning, free recall, cued recall, and praxis using culturally safe methods in English, Anishinaabemowin, and Nakota. For successful adaptation from the KICA, the orientation, verbal comprehension, verbal fluency, praxis, and naming domains required the most adaptation. Preliminary results indicate that the CICA demonstrated strong inter‐rater reliability, test‐retest reliability, and criterion validity. Conclusion The CICA is the first tool of its kind in Canada and offers promising applications in the detection of dementia among Indigenous populations.
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 | 0.047 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".