Andrew M Kiselica1, Troy A Webber2, Jared F Benge1,3,4. 1. Division of Neuropsychology, Department of Neurology, Baylor Scott and White Health, Temple, TX, USA. 2. Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Mental Health Care Line, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Plummer Movement Disorders Center, Temple, TX, USA. 4. Texas A&M College of Medicine, Temple, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to (1) specify the factor structure of the Uniform Dataset 3.0 neuropsychological battery (UDS3NB) in cognitively unimpaired older adults, (2) establish measurement invariance for this model, and (3) create a normative calculator for factor scores. METHODS: Data from 2520 cognitively intact older adults were submitted to confirmatory factor analyses and invariance testing across sex, age, and education. Additionally, a subsample of this dataset was used to examine invariance over time using 1-year follow-up data (n = 1061). With the establishment of metric invariance of the UDS3NB measures, factor scores could be extracted uniformly for the entire normative sample. Finally, a calculator was created for deriving demographically adjusted factor scores. RESULTS: A higher order model of cognition yielded the best fit to the data χ2(47) = 385.18, p < .001, comparative fit index = .962, Tucker-Lewis Index = .947, root mean square error of approximation = .054, and standardized root mean residual = .036. This model included a higher order general cognitive abilities factor, as well as lower order processing speed/executive, visual, attention, language, and memory factors. Age, sex, and education were significantly associated with factor score performance, evidencing a need for demographic correction when interpreting factor scores. A user-friendly Excel calculator was created to accomplish this goal and is available in the online supplementary materials. CONCLUSIONS: The UDS3NB is best characterized by a higher order factor structure. Factor scores demonstrate at least metric invariance across time and demographic groups. Methods for calculating these factors scores are provided.
OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to (1) specify the factor structure of the Uniform Dataset 3.0 neuropsychological battery (UDS3NB) in cognitively unimpaired older adults, (2) establish measurement invariance for this model, and (3) create a normative calculator for factor scores. METHODS: Data from 2520 cognitively intact older adults were submitted to confirmatory factor analyses and invariance testing across sex, age, and education. Additionally, a subsample of this dataset was used to examine invariance over time using 1-year follow-up data (n = 1061). With the establishment of metric invariance of the UDS3NB measures, factor scores could be extracted uniformly for the entire normative sample. Finally, a calculator was created for deriving demographically adjusted factor scores. RESULTS: A higher order model of cognition yielded the best fit to the data χ2(47) = 385.18, p < .001, comparative fit index = .962, Tucker-Lewis Index = .947, root mean square error of approximation = .054, and standardized root mean residual = .036. This model included a higher order general cognitive abilities factor, as well as lower order processing speed/executive, visual, attention, language, and memory factors. Age, sex, and education were significantly associated with factor score performance, evidencing a need for demographic correction when interpreting factor scores. A user-friendly Excel calculator was created to accomplish this goal and is available in the online supplementary materials. CONCLUSIONS: The UDS3NB is best characterized by a higher order factor structure. Factor scores demonstrate at least metric invariance across time and demographic groups. Methods for calculating these factors scores are provided.
Authors: Sarah E Monsell; Hiroko H Dodge; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Yunqi Bu; Lilah M Besser; Charles Mock; Stephen E Hawes; Walter A Kukull; Sandra Weintraub Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2016 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: S Craft; J Newcomer; S Kanne; S Dagogo-Jack; P Cryer; Y Sheline; J Luby; A Dagogo-Jack; A Alderson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 1996 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Dean C Delis; Mark Jacobson; Mark W Bondi; Joanne M Hamilton; David P Salmon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; David Salmon; Nathaniel Mercaldo; Steven Ferris; Neill R Graff-Radford; Helena Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles DeCarli; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Elaine Peskind; Woodrow Dietrich; Duane L Beekly; Walter A Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Steven D Shirk; Meghan B Mitchell; Lynn W Shaughnessy; Janet C Sherman; Joseph J Locascio; Sandra Weintraub; Alireza Atri Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David A Bennett; Kaj Blennow; Maria C Carrillo; Billy Dunn; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; David M Holtzman; William Jagust; Frank Jessen; Jason Karlawish; Enchi Liu; Jose Luis Molinuevo; Thomas Montine; Creighton Phelps; Katherine P Rankin; Christopher C Rowe; Philip Scheltens; Eric Siemers; Heather M Snyder; Reisa Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: RoShunna Lea; Jared F Benge; Charles H Adler; Thomas G Beach; Christine M Belden; Nan Zhang; Holly A Shill; Erika Driver-Dunckley; Shyamal H Mehta; Alireza Atri Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Andreana Benitez; Jens H Jensen; Kathryn Thorn; Siddhartha Dhiman; Stephanie Fountain-Zaragoza; William J Rieter; Maria Vittoria Spampinato; Eric D Hamlett; Paul J Nietert; Maria de Fatima Falangola; Joseph A Helpern Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Adam M Staffaroni; Breton M Asken; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Corrina Fonseca; Michelle You; Howard J Rosen; Adam L Boxer; Fanny M Elahi; John Kornak; Dan Mungas; Joel H Kramer Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 21.566