The aims of this study were to field and pilot test the Korean version of the Household Emergency Preparedness Instrument (K-HEPI) and perform psychometric testing of the instrument’s reliability and validity.

The English to Korean translation followed a symmetrical translation approach utilizing a decentered process (i.e., both the source and target languages were considered equally important) focusing on the instruments remaining loyal to the content. After translation, the K-HEPI was field tested with 30 bilingual participants who all reported that the instructions were easy to understand and the items aligned closely with the original English version. The K-HEPI was then pilot tested with 399 Korean-speaking participants in a controlled, before-after study utilizing a disaster preparedness educational intervention.

Confirmatory factor analyses supported the K-HEPI retaining the factor structure of the original English version. The K-HEPI was also found to be psychometrically comparable to the original instrument.

The K-HEPI can validly and reliably assess the disaster preparedness of Korean-speaking populations, enabling clinicians, researchers, emergency management professionals, and policymakers to gather accurate data on disaster preparedness levels in Korean communities, identify gaps in preparedness, develop targeted interventions, and evaluate the effectiveness of disaster preparedness interventions over time.

We compare the Emory 10-item, 4-choice Rey Complex Figure (CF) Recognition task with the Meyers and Lange (M&L) 24-item yes/no CF Recognition task in a large cohort of healthy research participants and in patients with heterogeneous movement disorder diagnoses. While both tasks assess CF recognition, they differ in key aspects including the saliency of target and distractor responses, self-selection versus forced-choice formats, and the length of the item sets.

There were 1056 participants from the Emory Healthy Brain Study (EHBS; average MoCA = 26.8, SD = 2.4) and 223 movement disorder patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation (average MoCA = 24.3, SD = 4.0).

Both recognition tasks differentiated between healthy and clinical groups; however, the Emory task demonstrated a larger effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.02) compared to the M&L task (Cohen’s d = 0.79). d-prime scoring of M&L recognition showed comparable group discrimination (Cohen’s d = 0.81). Unidimensional two-parameter logistic item response theory analysis revealed that many M&L items had low discrimination values and extreme difficulty parameters, which contributed to the task’s reduced sensitivity, particularly at lower cognitive proficiency levels relevant to clinical diagnosis. Dimensionality analyses indicated the influence of response sets as a potential contributor to poor item performance.

Emory CF Recognition task demonstrates superior psychometric properties and greater sensitivity to cognitive impairment compared to the M&L task. Its ability to more precisely measure lower levels of cognitive functioning, along with its brevity, suggests it may be more effective for diagnostic use, especially in clinical populations with cognitive decline.

To assess for differences in low score frequency on cognitive testing amongst older adults with and without a self-reported history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) dataset.

The sample included adults aged 65 or older who completed the Uniform Data Set 3.0 neuropsychological test battery (N = 7,363) and was divided by individuals with and without a history of TBI, as well as cognitive status as measured by the CDR. We compared TBI- and TBI + groups by the prevalence of low scores obtained across testing. Three scores falling at or below the 2nd percentile or four scores at or below the 5th percentile were criteria for an atypical number of low scores. Nonparametric tests assessed associations among low score prevalence and demographics, symptoms of depression, and TBI history.

Among cognitively normal participants (CDR = 0), older age, male sex and greater levels of depression were associated with low score frequency; among participants with mild cognitive impairment (CDR = 0.5-1), greater levels of depression, shorter duration of time since most recent TBI, and no prior history of TBI were associated with low score frequency.

Participants with and without a history of TBI largely produced low scores on cognitive testing at similar frequencies. Cognitive status, sex, education, depression, and TBI recency showed variable associations with the number of low scores within subsamples. Future research that includes more comprehensive TBI history is indicated to characterize factors that may modify the association between low scores and TBI history.

People with an intellectual disability are vulnerable to additional disorders such as dementia. Psychometrically sound and specific instruments are needed for assessment of cognitive functioning in cases of suspected dementia.

To evaluate the construct and item validity, internal consistency and test–retest reliability of a new neuropsychological test battery, the Dementia Test for People with Intellectual Disability (DTIM).

The DTIM was applied to 107 individuals with intellectual disability with (n = 16) and without (n = 91) dementia. The psychometric properties of the DTIM were assessed in a prospective study. The assessors were blinded to the diagnostic assignment.

Confirmatory factor analysis at the scale level showed that a one-factor model fitted the data well (root mean square error of approximation < 0.06, standardised root mean square residual < 0.08, comparative fit index > 0.9). At the domain level, one-factor models showed reasonable-to-good fit index for five of seven domains. Internal consistency indicated excellent reliability of the overall scale (Cronbach’s α: 0.94 for dementia and 0.95 for controls). Item analysis revealed a wide range of difficulties (0.19–0.75 for dementia, 0.31–0.87 for controls), with minimal floor and ceiling effects. Eleven items (26%) had discrimination value ≤ 0.50. Test–retest reliability (n = 82) was high, with intraclass correlations of 0.95 (total score) and 0.69–0.96 (domains).

The DTIM fits a one-factor model and demonstrates internal and test–retest reliability; thus, it is suitable for use in cases of suspected dementia in people with various intellectual disabilities.

This methodological study aimed to adapt the DLS, introduced for individuals aged 18-60 years, to those aged 60 years and older and to determine its psychometric properties.

We collected the data between December 15, 2021 and April 18, 2022. We carried out the study with a sample of 60 years and older living in the city center of Burdur, Turkey. The sample was selected using snowball sampling, a non-probability sampling technique. We collected the data using a questionnaire booklet covering an 11-item demographic information form and the DLS. We utilized reliability and validity analyses in the data analysis. The analyses were performed on SPSS 23.0, and a P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The mean age of the participants was found to be 68.29 (SD = 6.36). The 61-item measurement tool was reduced to 57 items by removing a total of 4 items from the scale. We also calculated Cronbach’s α values to be 0.936 for the mitigation/prevention subscale, 0.935 for the preparedness subscale, 0.939 for the response subscale, and 0.945 for the recovery/rehabilitation subscale.

As adapted in this study, the DLS-S can be validly and reliably used for individuals aged 60 years and older.

With the increased use of computer-based tests in clinical and research settings, assessing retest reliability and reliable change of NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) and Cogstate Brief Battery (Cogstate) is essential. Previous studies used mostly White samples, but Black/African Americans (B/AAs) must be included in this research to ensure reliability.

Participants were B/AA consensus-confirmed healthy controls (HCs) (n = 49) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 34) adults 60–85 years that completed NIHTB-CB and Cogstate for laptop at two timepoints within 4 months. Intraclass correlations, the Bland-Altman method, t-tests, and the Pearson correlation coefficient were used. Cut scores indicating reliable change provided.

NIHTB-CB composite reliability ranged from .81 to .93 (95% CIs [.37–.96]). The Fluid Composite demonstrated a significant difference between timepoints and was less consistent than the Crystallized Composite. Subtests were less consistent for MCIs (ICCs = .01–.89, CIs [−1.00–.95]) than for HCs (ICCs = .69–.93, CIs [.46–.92]). A moderate correlation was found for MCIs between timepoints and performance on the Total Composite (r = -.40, p = .03), Fluid Composite (r = -.38, p = .03), and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed (r = -.47, p = .006).

On Cogstate, HCs had lower reliability (ICCs = .47–.76, CIs [.05–.86]) than MCIs (ICCs = .65–.89, CIs [.29–.95]). Identification reaction time significantly improved between testing timepoints across samples.

The NIHTB-CB and Cogstate for laptop show promise for use in research with B/AAs and were reasonably stable up to 4 months. Still, differences were found between those with MCI and HCs. It is recommended that race and cognitive status be considered when using these measures.

This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Disaster Resilience Measuring Tool (DRMT-C19).

The research was a methodological, psychometric study. Standard translation processes were performed. Face validity and content validity were determined along with construct and convergent validity. To determine the final version of the questionnaire, 483 health care rescuers were selected using a consecutive sampling method. Other resilience-related questionnaires were used to assess concurrent validity. All quantitative data analyses were conducted using SPSS 22 and Jamovi 2.3.28 software.

The content validity and reliability were indicated using Scale’s Content Validity Ratio (S-CVR) = 0.92 and Scale’s Content Validity Index (S-CVI) = 0.93. The comprehensiveness of the measurement tool = 0.875%. Cronbach’s α = 0.89 and the test re-test reliability using interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.68 to 0.92. Exploratory factor analysis determined 4 factors which accounted for more than 58.54% of the variance among the items. Confirmatory factor analysis determined 12 factors. The concurrent validity between the DRMT-C19 and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) was r = 0.604 (P ≤ 0.0001).

The DRMT-C19 has satisfactory psychometric properties and is a valid, reliable, and valuable tool for assessing resilience against disasters in Iran’s Persian-speaking health care rescuers.