IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i2p1220-d1030868.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric Properties of the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) and Its Invariance across Age Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen Moret-Tatay

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

  • Iryna Zharova

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain
    Faculty of Psychology, National University of Ukraine on Physical Education and Sport, Kiev. Ukraine. St. Fizkul’tury, 1, 0315 Kyiv, Ukraine)

  • Isabel Iborra-Marmolejo

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

  • Gloria Bernabé-Valero

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

  • María José Jorques-Infante

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

  • María José Beneyto-Arrojo

    (MEB Laboratory, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Avenida de la ilustración 2, 46100 Valencia, Spain)

Abstract

Considering that a good sense of subjective cognitive decline seems to be crucial to prevent decline before clinical impairment, the interest in examining tools on this front were raised in the last decade. The aim of the present study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) across age in its Spanish adaptation. It should be noted that two constructs were proposed in this context: mnestic processes and executive function factors. For this reason, a sample of 750 individuals aged from 18 to 82 years participated in the study. They were divided into three different groups: young, middle, and older adults. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and invariance analysis were carried out. Moreover, a logistic regression was employed to address the role of age. The results support a good goodness of fit for both uni- and bifactorial models. The invariance analysis reached the structural covariances levels. Last, age did not predict the recognition of cognitive decline in the last two years, while the SCD-Q bifactorial model did. These results are of interest both on a theoretical level, to provide more information on models of cognitive impairment, and on a practical level, for screening.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen Moret-Tatay & Iryna Zharova & Isabel Iborra-Marmolejo & Gloria Bernabé-Valero & María José Jorques-Infante & María José Beneyto-Arrojo, 2023. "Psychometric Properties of the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) and Its Invariance across Age Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-9, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1220-:d:1030868
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Albert Satorra & Willem Saris, 1985. "Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 83-90, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julia Grass & Florian Krieger & Philipp Paulus & Samuel Greiff & Anja Strobel & Alexander Strobel, 2019. "Thinking in action: Need for Cognition predicts Self-Control together with Action Orientation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Alberto Maydeu-Olivares & Rosa Montaño, 2013. "How Should We Assess the Fit of Rasch-Type Models? Approximating the Power of Goodness-of-Fit Statistics in Categorical Data Analysis," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 116-133, January.
    3. Ke-Hai Yuan & Wai Chan, 2005. "On Nonequivalence of Several Procedures of Structural Equation Modeling," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 791-798, December.
    4. Wolfgang Jagodzinski & Steffen M. Kãœhnel & Peter Schmidt, 1987. "Is there a “Socratic Effect†in Nonexperimental Panel Studies?," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 15(3), pages 259-302, February.
    5. Paloma Bernal-Turnes & Ricardo Ernst, 2024. "More Bang for Your Buck: Best-Practice Recommendations for Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Job Creation Studies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1889-1912, March.
    6. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter Bentler, 2006. "Mean Comparison: Manifest Variable Versus Latent Variable," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(1), pages 139-159, March.
    7. Albert Satorra, 1989. "Alternative test criteria in covariance structure analysis: A unified approach," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 54(1), pages 131-151, March.
    8. Jonathan P Tennant & Norman MacLeod, 2014. "Snout Shape in Extant Ruminants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-13, November.
    9. Ke-Hai Yuan & Peter M. Bentler & Wei Zhang, 2005. "The Effect of Skewness and Kurtosis on Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 34(2), pages 240-258, November.
    10. Kenneth A. Bollen & James B. Kirby & Patrick J. Curran & Pamela M. Paxton & Feinian Chen, 2007. "Latent Variable Models Under Misspecification: Two-Stage Least Squares (2SLS) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) Estimators," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 48-86, August.
    11. Dalia Khalil & Zinah George & Thomas Templin & Elizabeth Jenuwine & Arash Javanbakht, 2023. "Perceived adversity and psychological distress in refugee married couples resettling in the United States," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 69(5), pages 1268-1276, August.
    12. Yuan, Ke-Hai & Hayashi, Kentaro & Bentler, Peter M., 2007. "Normal theory likelihood ratio statistic for mean and covariance structure analysis under alternative hypotheses," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(6), pages 1262-1282, July.
    13. McQuitty, Shaun, 2004. "Statistical power and structural equation models in business research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 175-183, February.
    14. Feinian Chen & Kenneth A. Bollen & Pamela Paxton & Patrick J. Curran & James B. Kirby, 2001. "Improper Solutions in Structural Equation Models," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 29(4), pages 468-508, May.
    15. Dylan Molenaar & Conor Dolan & Paul Boeck, 2012. "The Heteroscedastic Graded Response Model with a Skewed Latent Trait: Testing Statistical and Substantive Hypotheses Related to Skewed Item Category Functions," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 455-478, July.
    16. P. M. Bentler & Chih-Ping Chou, 1990. "Model Search With TETRAD II and EQS," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 19(1), pages 67-79, August.
    17. Dylan Molenaar, 2015. "Heteroscedastic Latent Trait Models for Dichotomous Data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 625-644, September.
    18. Cameron McIntosh, 2001. "Report on the Construct Validity of the Temporal Satisfaction With Life Scale," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 54(1), pages 37-56, April.
    19. Claes Fornell & Youjae Yi, 1992. "Assumptions of the Two-Step Approach to Latent Variable Modeling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 20(3), pages 291-320, February.
    20. Clemens Draxler, 2010. "Sample Size Determination for Rasch Model Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 75(4), pages 708-724, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1220-:d:1030868. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.