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.
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.
Authors: Fiona E Matthews; Mark Chatfield; Carol Freeman; Cherie McCracken; Carol Brayne Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2004-04-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Philip H Montenigro; Michael L Alosco; Brett M Martin; Daniel H Daneshvar; Jesse Mez; Christine E Chaisson; Christopher J Nowinski; Rhoda Au; Ann C McKee; Robert C Cantu; Michael D McClean; Robert A Stern; Yorghos Tripodis Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Yelena G Bodien; Michael McCrea; Sureyya Dikmen; Nancy Temkin; Kim Boase; Joan Machamer; Sabrina R Taylor; Mark Sherer; Harvey Levin; Joel H Kramer; John D Corrigan; Thomas W McAllister; John Whyte; Geoffrey T Manley; Joseph T Giacino Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2018 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: Michelle D Failla; Shannon B Juengst; Kristin M Graham; Patricia M Arenth; Amy K Wagner Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2016 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 2.710
Authors: M L Alosco; A B Kasimis; J M Stamm; A S Chua; C M Baugh; D H Daneshvar; C A Robbins; M Mariani; J Hayden; S Conneely; R Au; A Torres; M D McClean; A C McKee; R C Cantu; J Mez; C J Nowinski; B M Martin; C E Chaisson; Y Tripodis; R A Stern Journal: Transl Psychiatry Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Anne R Carlew; Hudaisa Fatima; Julia R Livingstone; Caitlin Reese; Laura Lacritz; Cody Pendergrass; Kenneth Chase Bailey; Chase Presley; Ben Mokhtari; Colin Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Lindsay D Nelson; Jason K Barber; Nancy R Temkin; Kristen Dams-O'Connor; Sureyya Dikmen; Joseph T Giacino; Mark D Kramer; Harvey S Levin; Michael A McCrea; John Whyte; Yelena G Bodien; John K Yue; Geoffrey T Manley Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 5.269