Development and Validation of Telephone Cognitive Testing for Community-Dwelling Older Adults (TCTCOA) in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the global acceleration of population ageing, cognitive health remains critical to the well-being of older adults. This study aimed to develop and validate Telephone Cognitive Testing for Community-dwelling Older Adults (TCTCOA), a culturally and contextually tailored cognitive assessment tool designed for healthy, community-dwelling older adults in China. TCTCOA included five cognitive domains—episodic memory, working memory, processing speed, executive function, and abstract reasoning and concept formation—assessed using culturally adapted tasks. A sample of 112 community-dwelling older adults aged 60 and above participated in the study. Sixty-eight participants completed TCTCOA via telephone and face-to-face modalities, alongside the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for validation. Pearson’s correlations, structural validity, and convergent validity were analyzed to evaluate the tool. TCTCOA demonstrated strong correlations between telephone and face-to-face modes (r = 0.72) and moderate correlations with the MoCA. Subtests showed no ceiling or floor effects, and the composite scores followed a normal distribution. The tool’s structural validity was supported by factor analysis, identifying general cognitive ability and efficiency as core components. TCTCOA is a valid, reliable, and accessible telephone-based cognitive assessment tool. It is suitable for healthy older adults in community settings, offering a practical alternative to traditional face-to-face cognitive evaluations. Its design overcomes cultural, educational, and logistical barriers, making it an effective resource for cognitive health monitoring in China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".