Floods are the most frequent natural disasters with a significant share of their mortality. Preparedness is capable of decreasing the mortality of floods by at least 50%. This paper aims to present the psychometric properties of a scale developed to evaluate the behavior of preparedness to floods in Sudan and similar settings.

In this methodological scale development study, experts assessed the content validity of the items of the developed scale. Data were collected from key persons of 413 households living in neighborhoods affected by the 2018 floods in Kassala City in Sudan. A pre-tested questionnaire of sociodemographic data and the Flood Preparedness Behavior Scale (FPBS) were distributed to the participants’ houses and recollected. Construct validity of the scale was checked using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Internal consistency of the scale was checked using Cronbach’s alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed by Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Item analyses and tests of significance of the difference in the mean scores of the highest and lowest score groups were carried out to ensure discriminatory power of the scale items.

Experts agreed on the scale items. Construct validity of the scale was achieved using EFA by removing 34 items and retaining 25 items that were structured in three factors, named as: measures to be done before, during, and after a flood. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the construct obtained by EFA. The loadings of the items on their factors in both EFA and CFA were all > 0.3 with significant associations and acceptable fit indices obtained from CFA. The three factors were found to be reliable in terms of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all factors were > 0.7) and test-retest reliability coefficient. In item analysis, the corrected total item correlations for all the items were > 0.3, and significant differences in the means of the highest and lowest score groups indicated good item discrimination power.

The developed 25 items scale is an instrument which produces valid and reliable measures of preparedness behavior for floods in Sudan and similar settings.

There is no universal tool for measuring disaster preparedness in the general population. This study aimed to provide a summary of the domains and psychometric properties of the available scales that assess preparedness for disasters, or one of its main types, among individuals or households.

This study is a systematic review of the literature on disaster preparedness tools. Studies published up to December 2022 were identified through a systematic search of four databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) were used to review and evaluate the psychometric properties. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to report this article.

Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Among them, five scales measured general disaster preparedness, five measured earthquake preparedness, one measured flood preparedness, and one measured bushfire preparedness. The scales had a number of dimensions ranging from one to six. The most common item topics in the included scales were as follows: having an evacuation plan (n = 7), information source (n = 7), fire extinguisher (n = 6), and emergency kit (n = 5). The scales were rated sufficient for content validity (n = 10), structural validity (n = 5), internal consistency (n = 5), and test-re-test reliability (n = 6). One scale was checked for criterion validity and was rated as insufficient according to the COSMIN guidelines.

The findings suggest the need to improve the psychometric properties of the scales, expand their contents, and develop scales relevant to target populations. This study provides useful information for researchers to develop comprehensive assessment tools and valuable sources of items for future scales.

Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) is a brief cognitive test, appropriate for people with minimum completed level of education and sensitive to multicultural contexts. It could be a good instrument for cognitive impairment (CI) screening in Primary Health Care (PHC). It comprises the following areas: recent memory, body orientation, praxis, executive functions and language.

The objective of this study is to assess the construct validity of RUDAS analysing its internal consistency and factorial structure.

Internal consistency will be calculated using ordinal Cronbach’s α, which reflects the average inter-item correlation score and, as such, will increase when correlations between the items increase. Exploratory Factor Analysis will be used to arrange the variables in domains using principal components extraction. The factorial analysis will include the extraction of five factors reflecting the neuropsychological areas assessed by the test. The result will be rotated under Varimax procedure to ease interpretation.

Exploratory factor analysis will be used to arrange the variables in domains using principal components extraction. The analysis will include Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. Estimations will be based based on Pearson’s correlations between indicators using a principal component analysis and later replicated with a tetrachoric correlation matrix. The variance in the tetrachoric model will be analysed to indentify convergent iterations and their explicative power.

RUDAS is being administered to 321 participants older than 65 years, from seven PHC physicians’ consultations in O Grove Health Center. The data collection will be finished by August 2021 and in this poster we will present the final results of the exploratory factor analysis.

We expect that the results of the exploratory factor analysis will replicate the results of previous studies of construct validity of the test in which explanatory factor weights were between 0.57 and 0.82, and all were above 40%. Confirming that RUDAS has a strong factor construct with high factor weights and variance ratio, and 6-item model is appropriate for measurement will support its recommendation as a valid screening instrument for PHC.

This study investigated the latent factor structure of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) and its measurement invariance across clinical diagnosis and key demographic variables including sex, race/ethnicity, age, and education for a typical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) research sample.

The NIHTB-CB iPad English version, consisting of 7 tests, was administered to 411 participants aged 45–94 with clinical diagnosis of cognitively unimpaired, dementia, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or impaired not MCI. The factor structure of the whole sample was first examined with exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and further refined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Two groups were classified for each variable (diagnosis or demographic factors). The confirmed factor model was next tested for each group with CFA. If the factor structure was the same between the groups, measurement invariance was then tested using a hierarchical series of nested two-group CFA models.

A two-factor model capturing fluid cognition (executive function, processing speed, and memory) versus crystalized cognition (language) fit well for the whole sample and each group except for those with age < 65. This model generally had measurement invariance across sex, race/ethnicity, and education, and partial invariance across diagnosis. For individuals with age < 65, the language factor remained intact while the fluid cognition was separated into two factors: (1) executive function/processing speed and (2) memory.

The findings mostly supported the utility of the battery in AD research, yet revealed challenges in measuring memory for AD participants and longitudinal change in fluid cognition.

There is a clear need to educate and train the clinical research workforce to conduct scientifically sound clinical research. Meeting this need requires the creation of tools to assess both an individual’s preparedness to function efficiently in the clinical research enterprise and tools to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of programs that are designed to educate and train clinical research professionals. Here we report the development and validation of a competency self-assessment entitled the Competency Index for Clinical Research Professionals, version II (CICRP-II).

CICRP-II was developed using data collected from clinical research coordinators (CRCs) participating in the “Development, Implementation and Assessment of Novel Training In Domain-Based Competencies” (DIAMOND) project at four clinical and translational science award (CTSA) hubs and partnering institutions.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) identified a two-factor structure: the first factor measures self-reported competence to perform Routine clinical research functions (e.g., good clinical practice regulations (GCPs)), while the second factor measures competence to perform Advanced clinical functions (e.g., global regulatory affairs). We demonstrate the between groups validity by comparing CRCs working in different research settings.

The excellent psychometric properties of CICRP-II and its ability to distinguish between experienced CRCs at research-intensive CTSA hubs and CRCs working in less-intensive community-based sites coupled with the simplicity of alternative methods for scoring respondents make it a valuable tool for gauging an individual’s perceived preparedness to function in the role of CRC as well as an equally valuable tool to evaluate the value and effectiveness of clinical research education and training programs.

Major depressive disorder (MDD) commonly co-occurs with clinically significant levels of anxiety. However, anxiety symptoms are varied and have been inconsistently associated with clinical, functional, and antidepressant treatment outcomes. We aimed to identify and characterise dimensions of anxiety in people with MDD and their use in predicting antidepressant treatment outcome.

1008 adults with a current diagnosis of single-episode or recurrent, nonpsychotic, MDD were assessed at baseline on clinical features and cognitive/physiological functioning. Participants were then randomised to one of three commonly prescribed antidepressants and reassessed at 8 weeks regarding symptom change, as well as remission and response, on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale Depression (HRSD17) and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16). Exploratory factor analysis was used on items from scales assessing anxiety symptoms, and resulting factors were assessed against clinical features and cognitive/physiological functioning. Factors were also assessed on their ability to predict treatment outcome.

Three factors emerged relating to stress, cognitive anxiety, and somatic anxiety. All factors showed high internal consistency, minimal cross-loadings, and unique clinical and functional profiles. Furthermore, only higher somatic anxiety was associated with poorer QIDS-SR16 remission, even after adjusting for covariates and multiple comparisons.

Anxiety symptoms in people with MDD can be separated onto distinct factors that differentially respond to treatment outcome. Furthermore, these factors do not align with subscales of established measures of anxiety. Future research should consider cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety separately when assessing anxiety in MDD and their use in predicting treatment outcome.

The Health Belief Model (HBM) can be used as a guide in enhancing the peoples’ awareness, improving the motivation, and providing tools that address beliefs and attitudes toward general disaster preparedness (GDP).

The aim of this study was to improve and re-test all psychometric properties of the published General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale based on HBM carried out in the general population. This scale development study measured by 58 items was prepared under the same structure of the developed GDPB scale that measured 31 items before. This expanded scale was applied to 973 individuals. Firstly, the data from application of the expanded scale was examined under Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Then, the estimations obtained from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the expanded scale with 45 items were compared with the estimations obtained from the previous scale with 31 items.

The EFA lead to the removal of 13 items and the retention of 45 items. The items which the factor loadings were below 0.30 and which gave the factor loadings for more dimension were excluded from the data set. A model measured six dimensions with 45 items was hypothesized: six items under perceived susceptibility, four items under perceived severity, six items under perceived benefits, 14 items under perceived barriers, five items under cues to action, and 10 items under self-efficacy. For CFA results, all estimations for factor loadings were significant. The scale with 45 items obtained in this study fit because Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were over 0.95.

These results suggest that the scale with 45 items shows improvement in the scale with 31 items. This study indicates that the GDPB scale with 45 items based on HBM has acceptable validity and reliability. This tool can be used in disaster preparedness surveys.InalE, DoganN. Improvement of General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale Based on Health Belief Model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(6):627–636.

The mechanism by which the home food environment (HFE) influences childhood obesity is unclear. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between HFE and childhood obesity as mediated by diet in primary-school children.

Cross-sectional data collected from parents and primary-school children participating in the Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle Evaluation Project. Only children aged 9–11 years participated in the study. Matched parent/child data (n 3323) were analysed. Exploratory factor analysis underlined components of twenty-one HFE items; these were linked to child diet (meeting guidelines for fruit, vegetable and non-core food intakes) and measured child BMI, in structural equation modelling, adjusting for confounders.

Twenty geographically bounded metropolitan and regional South Australian communities.

School children and their parents from primary schools in selected communities.

In the initial exploratory factor analysis, nineteen items remaining extracted eight factors with eigenvalues >1·0 (72·4 % of total variance). A five-factor structure incorporating ten items described HFE. After adjusting for age, gender, socio-economic status and physical activity all associations in the model were significant (P<0·05), explaining 9·3 % and 4·5 % of the variance in child diet and BMI, respectively. A more positive HFE was directly and indirectly associated with a lower BMI in children through child diet.

The robust statistical methodology used in the present study provides support for a model of direct and indirect dynamics between the HFE and childhood obesity. The model can be tested in future longitudinal and intervention studies to identify the most effective components of the HFE to target in childhood obesity prevention efforts.

Elucidating the cognitive architecture of schizophrenia promises to advance understanding of the clinical and biological substrates of the illness. Traditional cross-sectional neuropsychological approaches differentiate impaired from normal cognitive abilities but are limited in their ability to determine latent substructure. The current study examined the latent architecture of abnormal cognition in schizophrenia via a systematic approach.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were carried out on a large neuropsychological dataset including the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia, Continuous Performance Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Benton Judgment of Line Orientation Test, and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence matrix reasoning derived from 1012 English-speaking ethnic Chinese healthy controls and 707 schizophrenia cases recruited from in- and out-patient clinics.

An initial six-factor model fit cognitive data in healthy and schizophrenia subjects. Further modeling, which accounted for methodological variance between tests, resulted in a three-factor model of executive functioning, vigilance/speed of processing and memory that appeared to best discriminate schizophrenia cases from controls. Factor analytic-derived g estimands and conventionally calculated g showed similar case–control discrimination. However, agreement analysis suggested systematic differences between both g indices.

Factor structures derived in the current study were broadly similar to those reported previously. However, factor structures between schizophrenia subjects and healthy controls were different. Roles of factor analytic-derived g estimands and conventional composite score g were further discussed. Cognitive structures underlying cognitive deficits in schizophrenia may prove useful for interrogating biological substrates and enriching effect sizes for subsequent work.