Data quality, floor and ceiling effects, and test–retest reliability of the Mild Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire
Open accessAbstract
Background: The Mild Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire (MCQ) is a 13-item measure that assesses health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with mild cognitive impairment (PWMCI); it has two domains assessing the emotional and practical effects. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the MCQ. Design: This is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study. Setting: The participants were recruited from the memory clinics and research databases in the South of England. Subjects: A total of 299 people aged 50 years and older with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment confirmed within the preceding 12 months. Methods: MCQs were distributed to patients in memory clinics and those listed on research databases. Participants who returned completed questionnaires were sent a second copy of the MCQ to return 2 weeks after receiving the first questionnaire. Results: Five hundred and seven questionnaires were distributed; response rates were 68.2% initially and 89.2% for the second questionnaire. From the returned questionnaires, response rates for each item were high (>98%) and a full range of responses for each item was received with no evidence of significant floor or ceiling effects. Internal consistency reliability for both scale scores at both time points was good, with Cronbach’s α ≥0.84 in all cases. Test–retest reliability was excellent for both domains with the intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.90 and 0.92 for the practical and emotional domains, respectively. Paired sample t -tests also confirmed the stability of scale score distributions over time. Conclusion: The MCQ has robust psychometric properties, which make it suitable for assessing HRQoL in PWMCI, including comparison of group level data in intervention studies. Keywords: mild cognitive impairment, health-related quality of life, psychometric, validation
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The insignificant effect on sport performance anxiety might be due to a floor effect because participants reported very low levels of sport performance anxiety at baseline.
“The reason for the unexpected insignificant results might be the “floor effect” [47]. Specifically, since the collegiate basketball athletes recruited in the present study did not have much experience in participating in high-level competition, they reported very low levels of sport performance anxiety in the baseline test. Thus, the minimum baseline anxiety level of the participants creates a “fl”
From The Effect of Mindfulness Intervention on the Psychological Skills and Shooting Performances in Male Collegiate Basketball Athletes in Macau: A Quasi-Experimental Study (2023) · cites this paper as [47]
The Discussion and conclusion (page unavailable) describes a floor effect as many respondents selecting the lowest response category, supporting the term’s use for low scores. The paper studies a mild cognitive impairment questionnaire, however, and does not link low baseline sport-performance anxiety to an insignificant intervention result or report data on basketball athletes. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 14 · Cited by 34
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [15]Nunnally J Bernstein I Psychometric Theory 3rd ed New York McGraw Hill 1994
- Authors
- Dean, K., Walker, Z., & Jenkinson, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Dean, Katherine
- Venue
- Patient Related Outcome Measures
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- Volume 9
- Pages
- 43-47
- ISSN
- 1179-271X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5774743
- OpenAlex
- W2783826532
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Patient Related Outcome Measures (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- British Geriatrics Society
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
- Keywords
- mild cognitive impairment, health-related quality of life, psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency, emotional impact, practical effects, questionnaire validation
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
