This study aims to develop a simplified Chinese version of the \"Memory for Intentions Test\" (MIST), evaluate its reliability and concurrent validity, explore the inter-relationships among the MIST variables and the relationships between the MIST variables and socio-demographic factors.
Two hundred healthy, Chinese-speaking adults of the Han community participated in this study. Form A of the Chinese MIST and two prospective items of the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test, Second Edition (RBMT-II, Chinese version) were administered to all participants to evaluate internal consistency, split-half reliability, and concurrent validity. Twenty of these participants were assessed twice on Form A with a two-week interval to examine test-retest reliability. They were also assessed on both Form A and Form B to examine alternate-form reliability.
The findings of the study indicated good internal consistency (Cronbach\'s α = .833) and excellent split-half reliability (r = .924-.930) among the six subscales of the Chinese MIST, although the internal consistency was low (Cronbach\'s α = .129) for individual PM trials. We also found adequate concurrent validity (ρ = .722, p< .001), test-retest reliability (ρ = .716, p < .001), and alternate-form reliability (ρ= .828, p < .001).
The Chinese MIST demonstrated suitable reliability and concurrent validity in the Chinese-speaking population. The present study provides a new standardized prospective memory test for the Chinese population, which would enhance future clinical research in this field on the Chinese mainland.

To evaluate reliability and concurrent validity of the Alzheimer\'s Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale, Chinese Version (ADAS-Cog-C) among Chinese community older adults.
Three groups, comprising of 1,276 community-dwelling older adults, were included in this study: a normal control (NC), a mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and an Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) group. All participants were assessed through ADAS-Cog-C, clinical interviews, physical examinations, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). Internal consistency was assessed to evaluate the reliability of ADAS-Cog-C. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concurrent validity between ADAS-Cog-C, MMSE, and CDR.
Overall, the Cronbach\'s alpha coefficients of ADAS-Cog-C for the AD and MCI groups were 0.843 and 0.554, respectively. The split-half reliability coefficients for the AD and MCI groups were 0.860 and 0.539, respectively. ADAS-Cog-C scores were negatively correlated with MMSE scores (r = -0.706, p < 0.001) and positively associated with CDR scores (r = 0.546, p < 0.001). After excluding the MCI group from the analysis, the internal consistency of ADAS-Cog-C for the total population improved (α = 0.813, r hh = 0.852, all p < 0.001), as did the correlation between ADAS-Cog-C and MMSE (r = -0.828, p < 0.001) and CDR (r = 0.429, all p < 0.001) scores.
ADAS-Cog-C has good internal consistency and concurrent validity for assessing Chinese community older adults with AD, but poor consistency, good concurrent validity with the MMSE while moderate concurrent validity with the CDR for MCI.

The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the \"Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions\" (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus-evaluator burden).
Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet\'s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall\'s tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively.
The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it.

To evaluate the feasibility, discriminant validity and concurrent validity of the Health Status Classification System-Preschool (HSCS-PS) in children aged 3 years in a large community sample in the Netherlands.
A prospective population-based cohort in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
A questionnaire was administrated to a sample of parents of 4546 children (36.7±1.5 months).
Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of children was measured by HSCS-PS. The HSCS-PS consists of 10 original domains. Two single-item measures of \'General health\' and \'Behavior\' were added. A disability score was calculated by summing up all 10 original domains to describe the overall health status. Feasibility was assessed by the response rate, percentages of missing answers, score distributions and the presence of floor/ceiling effects. Discriminant validity was analysed between subgroups with predefined conditions: low birth weight, preterm birth, wheezing, Ear-Nose-Throat surgical procedures and behaviour problems. In the absence of another HRQOL measure, this study uses the single-items \'General health\' and \'Behavior\' as a first step to evaluate concurrent validity of the HSCS-PS.
Feasibility: response rate was 69%. Ceiling effects were observed in all domains. Discriminant validity: the disability score discriminated clearly between subgroups of children born with a \'very low birth weight\', \'very preterm birth\', with \'four or more than four times wheezing\', \'at least one ear-nose-throat surgical procedures\', \'behaviour problems present\' and the \'reference\' group. Concurrent validity: HSCS-PS domains correlated better with hypothesised parallel additional domains than with other non-hypothesised original domains.
This study supports the feasibility and validity of the HSCS-PS among preschoolers in community settings. We recommend developing a utility-based scoring algorithm for the HSCS-PS. Further empirical studies and repeated evaluations in varied populations are recommended.

The goal of this study was to develop a measure that assesses negative daily social encounters. Specifically, we examined the concept of perceived chronic social adversity and its assessment, the Perceived Chronic Social Adversity Questionnaire (PCSAQ). The PCSAQ focused on the subjective processing of daily social experiences. Psychometric properties were examined within two non-clinical samples (N = 331 and N = 390) and one clinical sample (N = 86). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor model of the PCSAQ, which corresponds to three types of daily social stressors. The final 28-item PCSAQ was shown to be internally consistent, and to have good construct validity in terms of factor structure and group differences. It was also shown to have good concurrent validity in terms of association with outcome variables (sense of control, happiness, and mood and anxiety symptoms). Perceived chronic social adversity was also shown to be correlated with PTSD severity. Taken together, these findings suggest that the PCSAQ is a reliable, valid, and useful measure that can be used to assess negative social and clinical aspects of personal experiences. This study is an important exploratory step in improving our understanding of the relationship between the cumulative effect of negative social encounters and psychological difficulty.

BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System is a simple and widely used questionnaire to assess patient symptoms.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and verify a Chinese version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (C-ESAS) for use with Chinese patients.
METHODS: Two hundred ten patients were surveyed in the Department of Gastroenterology of Xinqiao hospital in southwest China. Patients completed the C-ESAS and the Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory to assess internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity of the C-ESAS. The questionnaires were completed again two hours later.
RESULTS: The C-ESAS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.72). This indicated that no question had an inappropriate effect on the score. Pearson correlation coefficients for the C-ESAS symptom scores between baseline and after two hours ranged from 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35-0.89) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.57-0.94), indicating strong test-retest reliability. The corresponding Chinese version of the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory symptom scores ranged from 0.66 (95% CI, 0.58-0.95) to 0.96 (95% CI, 0.73-0.97), indicating good concurrent validity. The average time to complete the C-ESAS differed according to patient education level.
CONCLUSIONS: The C-ESAS is a good tool for measuring multidimensional symptoms in Chinese patients.