Cited by 23Psychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Bi-factor analyses of the brief test of adult cognition by telephone

Open access
Gavett, Brandon E., Crane, Paul K., Dams-O'Connor, Kristen·2013·NeuroRehabilitation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Telephone cognitive batteries are useful for large-scale screening and epidemiological studies, but their brevity and lack of content depth may cause psychometric limitations that hinder their utility. OBJECTIVE: The current study addressed some of these limitations by rescaling the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT; Tun & Lachman, 2006) using modern psychometric methods. METHODS: Archival data were obtained from a national sample of 4,212 28 to 84-year-old volunteers in the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (Ryff et al., 2007) Cognitive Project (Ryff & Lachman, 2007). We fit a bi-factor model to a combination of item-level, subscale-level, and scale-level data. RESULTS: The best fitting model contained a general factor and secondary factors capturing test-specific method effects or residual correlations for Number Series, Red/Green Test, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test. Factor scores generated from this model were compared with conventional BTACT scores. Important score differences (i.e., >0.3 standard deviation units) were found in 28% of the sample. The bi-factor scores demonstrated slightly superior validity than conventional BTACT scores when judged against a number of clinical and demographic criterion variables. CONCLUSIONS: Modern psychometric approaches to scoring the BTACT have the benefit of linear scaling and a modest criterion validity advantage.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3233/nre-130842

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Muthén LK Muthén BO Mplus User’s Guide 1998-2010 Muthén & Muthén Los Angeles, CA Sixth Edition

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gavett, B. E., Crane, P. K., & Dams-O'Connor, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
Venue
NeuroRehabilitation
Published
2013-04-11
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
253-265
ISSN
  • 1053-8135 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-6448
OpenAlex
W2125377781
Cited by
23
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurorehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R13AG030995, R01AG029672, P01AG020166)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
bifactor model, cognitive screening, test scoring, factor structure, criterion validity, older adults, cognitive aging
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mathematics, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Retrospective Studies, Telephone, United States, Verbal Learning, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Executive Function

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