Preliminary Validation Study of the French-Quebec Version of the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist
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
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease dementia may be preceded by cognitive stages during which behavioral and psychological changes can occur. More precisely, behavioral symptoms may be observed during the subjective cognitive decline (SCD) or the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stages; these symptoms can be measured using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C). OBJECTIVE: To validate the French-Quebec version of the MBI-C in individuals ages 60-85 years. METHOD: The sample included 60 participants (20 MCI, 20 SCD, 20 cognitively healthy) and their informants. To assess the discriminant validity of the MBI-C, a Kruskal-Wallis analysis with a multiple comparisons test was performed on the MBI-C Total score. To determine convergent validity, Spearman correlations were calculated between the MBI-C subscales and a set of validation tools. Finally, test-retest reliability was assessed with Spearman correlations of MBI-C scores between two test sessions. RESULTS: All of the analyses indicated satisfactory psychometric properties for the French-Quebec version of the MBI-C. CONCLUSION: This validation study reveals that the MBI-C can be used successfully in dementia risk assessments. From now on, the use of a validated MBI-C will be possible in the French-Quebec population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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