IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i21-22p3147-3154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the Chinese version of the CogState computerised cognitive assessment battery in Taiwanese patients with heart failure

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng‐Chen Chou
  • Susan J Pressler
  • Bruno Giordani
  • Susan Jane Fetzer

Abstract

Aims and objectives To evaluate the validity of the Chinese version of the CogState battery, a computerised cognitive testing among patients with heart failure in Taiwan. Background Cognitive deficits are common in patients with heart failure and a validated Chinese measurement is required for assessing cognitive change for this population. The CogState computerised battery is a measurement of cognitive function and has been validated in many languages, but not Chinese. Design A cross‐sectional study. Methods A convenience sample consisted of 76 women with heart failure and 64 healthy women in northern Taiwan. Women completed the Chinese version of the CogState battery and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Construct validity of the Chinese version of the battery was evaluated by exploratory factor analysis and known‐group comparisons. Convergent validity of the CogState tasks was examined by Pearson correlation coefficients. Results Principal components factor analysis with promax rotation showed two factors reflecting the speed and memory dimensions of the tests. Scores for CogState battery tasks showed significant differences between the heart failure and healthy control group. Examination of convergent validity of the CogState found a significant association with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Conclusion The Chinese CogState Battery has satisfactory construct and convergent validity to measure cognitive deficits in patients with heart failure in Taiwan. Relevance to clinical practice The Chinese CogState battery is a valid instrument for detecting cognitive deficits that may be subtle in the early stages, and identifying changes that provide insights into patients’ abilities to implement treatment accurately and consistently. Better interventions tailored to the needs of the cognitive impaired population can be developed.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng‐Chen Chou & Susan J Pressler & Bruno Giordani & Susan Jane Fetzer, 2015. "Validation of the Chinese version of the CogState computerised cognitive assessment battery in Taiwanese patients with heart failure," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(21-22), pages 3147-3154, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:21-22:p:3147-3154
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12919
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12919?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elisabeth Nordenswan & Eeva-Leena Kataja & Kirby Deater-Deckard & Riikka Korja & Mira Karrasch & Matti Laine & Linnea Karlsson & Hasse Karlsson, 2020. "Latent Structure of Executive Functioning/Learning Tasks in the CogState Computerized Battery," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(3), pages 21582440209, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:21-22:p:3147-3154. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.