Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:40:23.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating the uses of the total score and the domain scores in the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, Chinese Version (CASI C-2.0): results of confirmatory factor analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2007

Rung-Ching Tsai ,
Ker-Neng Lin ,
Hsiao-Jyuan Wang  and
Hsiu-Chih Liu
Rung-Ching Tsai*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan
Ker-Neng Lin
Affiliation:
Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Department of Neurology, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan Department of Psychology, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan
Hsiao-Jyuan Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan
Hsiu-Chih Liu
Affiliation:
Neurological Institute, Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Department of Neurology, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Rung-Ching Tsai, Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University, No. 88, Sec 4, Ting-Chou Rd, Taipei 116, Taiwan. Phone: +886 2 29322657, Fax: +886 2 29332342. Email: rtsai@math.ntnu.edu.tw.
Get access

Abstract

Background: The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) consists of items which are designed to measure the nine domains of cognitive ability. Its total score is used clinically to represent the overall underlying cognitive ability of the patient. This study aimed to evaluate the justification of the uses of the all-domain-total-score as an overall cognitive measure and the domain scores as measures of designated individual cognitive ability.

Methods: To justify the use of total score of all the items as an overall measure of cognitive ability, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis was performed to examine whether the items in CASI contributed significantly to a common underlying construct. The uses of domain scores were also examined by inspecting the loadings of the items on their designated domains. The CASI data from 608 patients, 68 normal and 540 with Alzheimer's disease, were analyzed.

Results The goodness-of-fit indices for the second-order factor model were as follows: CFI was 0.912 for WLSMV and 0.977 for WLSM; TLI and RMSEA values were 0.975 and 0.090 respectively. The loadings of the items on the common underlying construct are all salient (>0.3). The loadings of all but the long-term memory items on their respective subdomains were also salient.

Conclusions: The items of the CASI C-2.0 were useful not only in profiling the correlated cognitive domain scores, but also in forming an overall measure of the underlying cognitive ability of the patients.

Keywords

Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI)dementiaconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 1051 - 1063
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagozzi, R. P. and Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of the Structural Equation Model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M. 1993. EQS: Structural Equation Program Manual (Version 4.0). Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. and Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significant tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, M. and Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. 1975. “Mini-mental State”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Funabiki, Y., Takechi, H., Akamatsu, T. and Kita, T. 2002. Development of a short neuropsychological battery to screen early dementia in the elderly. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 2, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, A. B. et al. 1996. Prevalence of dementia and its subtypes in the Japanese American population of King County, Washington State: the Kame Project. American Journal of Epidemiology, 144, 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L. T. and Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, C. P., Berg, L., Danziger, W. L., Coben, L. A. and Martin, R. L. 1982. A new scale for the staging of dementia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 566–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, K. N. and Liu, H. C. 2003. Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Chinese version. Acta Neurologica Taiwanica, 12 (3), 155–165 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Lin, K. N., Wang, P. N., Liu, C. Y., Chen, W. T., Lee, Y. C. and Liu, H. C. 2002. Cutoff scores of the Cognitive Abilities Screening instrument, Chinese version in screening dementia. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 14, 176–182.Google Scholar
Liu, H. C. et al. 1994. Assessing cognitive abilities and dementia in a predominantly illiterate population of older individuals in Kinmen. Psychological Medicine, 24, 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H. C. et al. 1998. Prevalence and subtypes of dementia in a rural Chinese population. Alzheimer Diseases and Associated Disorders, 12, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H. C. et al. 2002a. Performance on the Cognitive Abilities Screening instrument at different stages of Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 13, 244–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, H. C., Teng, E. L., Chuang, Y. Y., Lin, K. N., Fuh, J. L. and Wang, P. N. 2002b. The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale: findings from a low-education population. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 131, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCurry, S. M. et al. 1999. The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI): data from a cohort of 2,524 cognitively intact elderly. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 882–888.3.0.CO;2-D>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R. P. 1999. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. and Ho, R. M. H. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, B. O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Muthèn, L. K. and Muthèn, B. O. 1998. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Sherrell, K., Buckwalter, K. C., Bode, R. and Strozdas, L. 1999. Use of the cognitive abilities screening instrument to assess elderly persons with schizophrenia in long-term care settings. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 20, 541–558.Google ScholarPubMed
Sörbom, D. 1989 Model modification. Psychometrika, 54, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiger, J. H. and Lind, J. M. 1980. Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Teng, E. L. et al. 1994a. The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI): a practical test for cross-cultural epidemiological studies of dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 6, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teng, E. L., Lin, K. N., Chou, P., Wang, S. J., Fuh, J. L. and Liu, H. C. 1994b. Results of the preliminary testing of CASI C-2.0. Psychological Testing in Chinese-speaking Societies (pp. 117–135) Taipei: Psychological Publishing (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Tsai, R., Lin, K. N., Wu, K. Y. and Liu, H. C. 2004. Improving the screening power of the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument, Chinese version. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 18, 314–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, L. R. and Lewis, C. 1973. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, C.-Y. and Muthèn, B. O. 2001 Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report.Google Scholar