Validity and reliability of the Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire (ADQ) in Indonesian health students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals living with dementia often visit healthcare settings, so it is important for health professionals to have appropriate dementia care training. A key component of dementia care is a positive, person-centred attitude towards people with dementia. As future healthcare workers, health students need to develop positive attitudes early in their education. To assess and support the development of such attitudes, a brief, valid, and reliable tool is needed in Indonesia. However, no such tool is currently available in Indonesia. The Approaches to Dementia Questionnaire (ADQ) is a well-established instrument that measures care staff attitudes and has been shown to predict staff behaviour and the recognition of people with dementia. Therefore, this study aims to translate, adapt, and assess the validity and reliability of the Indonesian translation of the modified ADQ for use with health students. METHODS: This methodological study was conducted from October to November 2023 to adapt the modified ADQ into Indonesian. The translation process followed established cross-cultural adaptation by Brislin guidelines, including translation, synthesis, expert review, and testing. Two translators from different language institutions translated the instrument into Indonesian (T1 & T2). These two versions were synthesised into an integrated version (T12) by a panel of experts. The final instrument was tested on 161 fourth-year nursing, medical, and health nutrition students recruited through consecutive sampling. RESULTS: The Indonesian version of the ADQ demonstrated an overall internal consistency of 0.584 (Cronbach's alpha), which is considered acceptable. Subscale reliability was moderate for the Hope subscale (α = 0.552) and higher for the Personhood subscale (α = 0.701). Item-total correlation values ranged from 0.261 to 0.588, indicating moderate validity overall; however, three items (Items 1, 6, and 15) were identified as invalid with correlation coefficients below 0.195. CONCLUSION: The Indonesian version of the ADQ demonstrated lower reliability and variable subscale consistency compared to adaptations in other countries. This may be due to limited public awareness and associated stigma towards dementia. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of item wording and better alignment with local contexts, to improve the tool's validity and reliability for use in different populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".