Linking self-perceived cognitive functioning questionnaires using item response theory: The subjective cognitive decline initiative.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Self-perceived cognitive functioning, considered highly relevant in the context of aging and dementia, is assessed in numerous ways-hindering the comparison of findings across studies and settings. Therefore, the present study aimed to link item-level self-report questionnaire data from international aging studies. METHOD: We harmonized secondary data from 24 studies and 40 different questionnaires with item response theory (IRT) techniques using a graded response model with a Bayesian estimator. We compared item information curves to identify items with high measurement precision at different levels of the self-perceived cognitive functioning latent trait. Data from 53,030 neuropsychologically intact older adults were included, from 13 English language and 11 non-English (or mixed) language studies. RESULTS: We successfully linked all questionnaires and demonstrated that a single-factor structure was reasonable for the latent trait. Items that made the greatest contribution to measurement precision (i.e., "top items") assessed general and specific memory problems and aspects of executive functioning, attention, language, calculation, and visuospatial skills. These top items originated from distinct questionnaires and varied in format, range, time frames, response options, and whether they captured ability and/or change. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to calibrate self-perceived cognitive functioning data of geographically diverse older adults. The resulting item scores are on the same metric, facilitating joint or pooled analyses across international studies. Results may lead to the development of new self-perceived cognitive functioning questionnaires guided by psychometric properties, content, and other important features of items in our item bank. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.084 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".