Byron Creese1, Alys Griffiths2, Helen Brooker1, Anne Corbett1, Dag Aarsland3,4, Clive Ballard1, Zahinoor Ismail5. 1. University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK. 2. Centre for Dementia Research, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK. 3. Department of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 4. Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway. 5. Departments of Psychiatry, Clinical Neurosciences, and Community Health Sciences, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In this large population study, we set out to examine the profile of mild behavioral impairment (MBI) by using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) and to explore its factor structure when employed as a self-reported and informant-rated tool. DESIGN: This was a population-based cohort study. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the Platform for Research Online to Investigate Genetics and Cognition in Aging study (https://www.protect-exeter.org.uk). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5,742 participant-informant dyads participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: Both participants and informants completed the MBI-C. The factor structure of the MBI-C was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The most common MBI-C items, as rated by self-reported and informants, related to affective dysregulation (mood/anxiety symptoms), being present in 34% and 38% of the sample, respectively. The least common items were those relating to abnormal thoughts and perception (psychotic symptoms) (present in 3% and 6% of the sample, respectively). Only weak correlations were observed between self-reported and informant-reported MBI-C responses. Exploratory factor analysis for both sets of respondent answers indicated that a five-factor solution for the MBI-C was appropriate, reflecting the hypothesized structure of the MBI-C. CONCLUSION: This is the largest and most detailed report on the frequency of MBI symptoms in a nondementia sample. The full spectrum of MBI symptoms was present in our sample, whether rated by self-reported or informant report. However, we show that the MBI-C performs differently in self-reported versus informant-reported situations, which may have important implications for the use of the questionnaire in clinic and research.
OBJECTIVES: In this large population study, we set out to examine the profile of mild behavioral impairment (MBI) by using the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) and to explore its factor structure when employed as a self-reported and informant-rated tool. DESIGN: This was a population-based cohort study. SETTING:Participants were recruited from the Platform for Research Online to Investigate Genetics and Cognition in Aging study (https://www.protect-exeter.org.uk). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5,742 participant-informant dyads participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: Both participants and informants completed the MBI-C. The factor structure of the MBI-C was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis. RESULTS: The most common MBI-C items, as rated by self-reported and informants, related to affective dysregulation (mood/anxiety symptoms), being present in 34% and 38% of the sample, respectively. The least common items were those relating to abnormal thoughts and perception (psychotic symptoms) (present in 3% and 6% of the sample, respectively). Only weak correlations were observed between self-reported and informant-reported MBI-C responses. Exploratory factor analysis for both sets of respondent answers indicated that a five-factor solution for the MBI-C was appropriate, reflecting the hypothesized structure of the MBI-C. CONCLUSION: This is the largest and most detailed report on the frequency of MBI symptoms in a nondementia sample. The full spectrum of MBI symptoms was present in our sample, whether rated by self-reported or informant report. However, we show that the MBI-C performs differently in self-reported versus informant-reported situations, which may have important implications for the use of the questionnaire in clinic and research.
Authors: Ganesh M Babulal; Ling Chen; Jason M Doherty; Samantha A Murphy; Ann M Johnson; Catherine M Roe Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: Zahinoor Ismail; Byron Creese; Dag Aarsland; Helen C Kales; Constantine G Lyketsos; Robert A Sweet; Clive Ballard Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 44.711
Authors: Sascha Gill; Meng Wang; Pauline Mouches; Deepthi Rajashekar; Tolulope Sajobi; Frank P MacMaster; Eric E Smith; Nils D Forkert; Zahinoor Ismail Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Firoza Z Lussier; Tharick A Pascoal; Mira Chamoun; Joseph Therriault; Cécile Tissot; Mélissa Savard; Min Su Kang; Sulantha Mathotaarachchi; Andrea L Benedet; Marlee Parsons; Muhammad Naveed Iqbal Qureshi; Émilie M Thomas; Monica Shin; Laurie-Anne Dion; Gassan Massarweh; Jean-Paul Soucy; I-Huang Tsai; Paolo Vitali; Zahinoor Ismail; Pedro Rosa-Neto; Serge Gauthier Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: James P Naude; Sascha Gill; Sophie Hu; Alexander McGirr; Nils D Forkert; Oury Monchi; Peter K Stys; Eric E Smith; Zahinoor Ismail Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2020 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Clive Ballard; Helen C Kales; Constantine Lyketsos; Dag Aarsland; Byron Creese; Roger Mills; Hilde Williams; Robert A Sweet Journal: Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 5.081