Reliability and validity of the Cognitive Assessment for Stroke Patients (Chinese version) for patients with nonaphasic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to preliminarily explore the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Cognitive Assessment for Stroke Patients (CASP) in patients with nonaphasic stroke and provide a reliable basis for its clinical application in China. The original French version of the CASP was translated into Mandarin Chinese. The study enrolled 58 patients in the neurological center. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and CASP were used to evaluate cognitive function. Content validity, structural validity, and concurrent validity, internal consistency, interrater consistency, and retesting reliability were used to evaluate the results. The Spearman correlation coefficient of each item and the total CASP score was between 0.320 and 0.905 (p < .05), showing good content validity. Two initial factors were extracted using principal component analysis and the orthogonal rotation method, with a cumulative contribution rate of 70.100%. Except for the subitem reproducing a copy of a cube, the factor loading of all subitems was >0.5, indicating good construct validity. The total CASP score significantly correlated with the total MMSE (r = 0.796, p < .001) and total MoCA (r = 0.816, p < .001) scores, indicating good concurrent validity. Cronbach’s α of the CASP was 0.812, showing good internal consistency. The interrater consistency (ICC > 0.85) and retesting reliability (ICC = 0.7–0.951) were good. The Chinese version of the CASP has good reliability and validity and can play a good auxiliary role in evaluating cognitive dysfunction in patients with stroke.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".