The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The measurement of everyday cognition (ECog): Scale development and psychometric properties.
Open accessAbstract
This article describes the development and validation of an instrument to assess cognitively mediated functional abilities in older adults, Everyday Cognition (ECog). The ECog is an informant-rated questionnaire comprised of multiple subscales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine its factor structure. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing it to established measures of everyday function. External validity was evaluated by comparing ECog results across different clinical groups [cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), dementia]. CFA supported a seven-factor model including one global factor and six domain-specific factors (Everyday Memory, Language, Visuospatial Abilities, Planning, Organization, and Divided attention). The ECog correlated with established measures of functional status and global cognition, but only weakly with age and education. The clinical groups performed differently in each domain. In addition to the global factor, the Everyday Memory factor independently differentiated MCI from Normal, while the Everyday Language domain differentiated Dementia from MCI. Different subtypes of MCI also showed different patterns. Results suggest the ECog shows promise as a useful tool for the measurement of general and domain-specific everyday functions in the elderly.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Neuropathological stageing of Alzheimer-related changes.
Braak, H., & Braak, E. (1991) · Acta Neuropathologica · doi:10.1007/bf00308809 · Cited by 16,123
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules
Morris, J. C. (1993) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a · Cited by 9,882
A Reliability Coefficient for Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291170 · Cited by 7,330 · cited 7×
“These indices included the comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler, 1989, 1990), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Cudek & Browne, 1983), and the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) (Tucker & Lewis, 1973).”
InfluentialMoms, J. C., Heyman, A., Mohs, R. C., Hughes, J. P., van Belle, G., Fillenbaum, G., Mellits, E. D., & Clark, C. (1989) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.39.9.1159 · Cited by 4,130
Blessed, G., Tomlinson, B. E., & Roth, M. (1968) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.114.512.797 · Cited by 4,117
The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures
Reise, S. P., Morizot, J., & Hays, R. D. (2007) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7 · Cited by 747
Measurement and prediction of functional capacity in Alzheimer's disease
Stern, Y., Hesdorffer, D., Sano, M., & Mayeux, R. (1990) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.40.1.8 · Cited by 147
Discriminative and predictive power of an informant report in mild cognitive impairment
Isella, V (2006) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.069765 · Cited by 109
Cited by
Giugliano, R. P., Pedersen, T. R., Park, J.-G., De Ferrari, G. M., Gaciong, Z. A., Ceska, R., Toth, K., Gouni-Berthold, I., Lopez-Miranda, J., Schiele, F., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32290-0 · Cited by 682
Cognitive function in a randomized trial of evolocumab
Giugliano, R. P., Mach, F., Zavitz, K., Kurtz, C., Im, K., Kanevsky, E., Schneider, J., Wang, H., Keech, A., Pedersen, T. R., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1701131 · Cited by 492
Subjective cognitive complaints and amyloid burden in cognitively normal older individuals
Amariglio, R. E., Becker, J. A., Carmasin, J., Wadsworth, L. P., Lorius, N., Sullivan, C., Maye, J. E., Gidicsin, C., Pepin, L. C., Sperling, R. A., et al. (2012) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.08.011 · Cited by 472
Gorelick, P. B., Furie, K. L., Iadecola, C., Smith, E. E., Waddy, S. P., Lloyd-Jones, D. M., Bae, H.-J., Bauman, M. A., Dichgans, M., Duncan, P. W., et al. (2017) · Stroke · doi:10.1161/str.0000000000000148 · Cited by 411
Recommendations of the 5th Canadian Consensus Conference on the diagnosis and treatment of dementia
Ismail, Z., Black, S. E., Camicioli, R., Chertkow, H., Herrmann, N., Laforce, R., Montero‐Odasso, M., Rockwood, K., Rosa‐Neto, P., Seitz, D., et al. (2020) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.12105 · Cited by 245
Metadata
- Authors
- Farias, S. T., Mungas, D., Reed, B. R., Cahn-Weiner, D., Jagust, W., Baynes, K., & DeCarli, C.
- Venue
- Neuropsychology
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 531-544
- ISSN
- 0894-4105 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-1559
- OpenAlex
- W2115300091
- Cited by
- 627
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 7.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AG021511)
- California Department of Health Services
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
