↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validation of the Chinese version of Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Validation of the Chinese version of Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s118110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang-Jen Wang, Pao-Yen Lin, Yu Lee, Yu-Chi Huang, Su-Ting Hsu, Chi-Fa Hung, Chih-Ken Chen, Yi-Chih Chen, Ya-Ling Wang, Ming-Che Tsai

Abstract

A test battery that measures cognitive function impairment in patients with schizophrenia, the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS), has been translated into various languages and validated. This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the BACS in a Chinese-speaking population. All participants in this study (66 patients with schizophrenia [mean age: 41.2 years, 57.6% male] and 66 age- and sex-matched healthy controls) were from Taiwan and assessed using the BACS and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) Performance-Based Skills Assessment, Brief Version (UPSA-B). Thirty-eight of the 66 patients with schizophrenia received a reassessment using the BACS. The BACS had good test-retest reliability, and all BACS subtests had statistically insignificant practice effects. Principal components analysis demonstrated that a one-factor solution best fits our dataset (60.9% of the variance). In both patients and controls, the BACS composite scores were positively correlated with all BACS subscales (P<0.001) and UPSA-B scales (P<0.001). Furthermore, all BACS subtests (verbal memory, working memory, motor speed, verbal fluency, attention and processing speed, and executive function) significantly differentiated patients with schizophrenia from healthy controls (P<0.001), and the BACS composite score had the best discriminative validity (P<0.001). The Chinese version of the BACS exhibits satisfactory psychometric properties, including high test-retest reliability, high internal consistency, acceptable concurrent validity, and good discriminant validity. We suggest that the BACS is a reliable and practical tool for assessing cognitive function in patients with schizophrenia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,902
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,521
of 332,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#57
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.