MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224283411 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1566115/v1

Psychometric Performance of the Subjective Memory Complain Scale Among Colombian Elders

2022· preprint· en· W4224283411 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Functions and Memory
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad del MagdalenaFulbright Association
KeywordsCronbach's alphaConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyExploratory factor analysisPopulationScale (ratio)CognitionInternal consistencyClinical psychologyPsychometricsDemographyPsychiatryStatisticsStructural equation modelingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The Subjective Memory Complaint Scale (SMCS-15) is a 15-item instrument to explore frequent forgetfulness in daily life in people with possible cognitive impairment. However, knowledge about its psychometric performance is limited. Objective To know the dimensionality and internal consistency of the SMCS-15 in Colombian older adults. Methods A probabilistic sample of 1,957 older adults from the general Colombian population was taken, aged between 60 and 98 years (mean = 71.0 ± 7.9), and 62.2% were women. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega) and dimensionality (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis) were calculated for the original and ten-item versions. Results The 15-item version showed Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega of 0.91 and one dimension that accounted for 45.3% of the variance. A version of ten items showed Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega of 0.89 and a single factor that explained 50.9% of the variance with better indicators in the confirmatory factor analysis. Convergence with the shortened Mini-Mental State Examination was r s =0.43 (p < 0.001), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test was r s =0.38 (p < 0.001). The nomological validity with the geriatric depression scale was r s =0.44 (p < 0.001), and women scored higher than men (p < 0.001). Conclusions The SMCS-15 shows high internal consistency with poor dimensionality. However, a ten-item version shows high internal consistency and a clear one-dimensional structure. More research is needed.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.322 · 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