Measurement invariance of the Cognitive Function Index across race in the A4 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Accumulating evidence suggests that subjective concerns expressed by cognitively normal older individuals may be a sensitive indicator of early Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The Cognitive Function Index (CFI) is a 14‐item questionnaire developed to assess subjective decline in cognitively unimpaired individuals. Previous studies have reported that greater CFI scores are associated with greater amyloid burden and faster cognitive decline in cognitively unimpaired individuals. These findings, however, have been found in predominantly White samples, and the equivalence of the CFI across different races has not been investigated. The goal of this study was to evaluate measurement invariance (i.e., equivalence) of the CFI across race using data from the Anti‐Amyloid in Asymptomatic AD (A4) Study. Method This study analyzed screening data from the A4 Study. Participants (N = 5735) were classified as Black, Asian, or White using self‐reported race. Latino/Hispanic individuals were excluded due to low numbers (N = 232). A multi‐group confirmatory factor analysis using a single‐factor model was conducted in Mplus to evaluate invariance of the CFI across race. Acceptable model fit was confirmed using the following: χ2/df <3, comparative fit index>.95, and the root‐mean‐square error of approximation (RMSEA)<.1. Measurement invariance was established with a ∆comparative fit index≤.01, and ∆RMSEA≤ .015 between invariance tests. Result Of the individuals included N = 267 were Black, N = 277 were Asian, and N = 5241 were White (mean±SD age: 71.7±4.9, education (years): 16.4±3.0, and male: 2466 (43%)). Configural, metric, scalar, and strict measurement invariance was supported by race (Table 1). Conclusion The results demonstrate equivalent performance of the CFI across cognitively unimpaired participants who self‐identify as Black, Asian, or White. Differences between these groups measured by the CFI can be considered to reflect true inter‐group differences in subjective cognitive concerns rather than differences in the measurement properties of the scale. Future work should examine measurement invariance of the CFI in additional racial/ethnic groups.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".