↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Preliminary findings on the reliability and validity of the Cantonese Birmingham Cognitive Screen in patients with acute ischemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Preliminary findings on the reliability and validity of the Cantonese Birmingham Cognitive Screen in patients with acute ischemic stroke
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, September 2015
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s85698
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haobo Chen, Xiaoping Pan, Wai-Ling Bickerton, Johnny King Lam Lau, Anthony Pak-Hin Kong, Pia Rotshtein, Aihua Guo, Jianxi Hu, Glyn Humphreys

Abstract

There are no currently effective cognitive assessment tools for patients who have suffered stroke in the People's Republic of China. The Birmingham Cognitive Screen (BCoS) has been shown to be a promising tool for revealing patients' poststroke cognitive deficits in specific domains, which facilitates more individually designed rehabilitation in the long run. Hence we examined the reliability and validity of a Cantonese version BCoS in patients with acute ischemic stroke, in Guangzhou. A total of 98 patients with acute ischemic stroke were assessed with the Cantonese version of the BCoS, and an additional 133 healthy individuals were recruited as controls. Apart from the BCoS, the patients also completed a number of external cognitive tests, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Albert's cancellation test, the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, and six gesture matching tasks. Cutoff scores for failing each subtest, ie, deficits, were computed based on the performance of the controls. The validity and reliability of the Cantonese BCoS were examined, as well as interrater and test-retest reliability. We also compared the proportions of cases being classified as deficits in controlled attention, memory, character writing, and praxis, between patients with and without spoken language impairment. Analyses showed high test-retest reliability and agreement across independent raters on the qualitative aspects of measurement. Significant correlations were observed between the subtests of the Cantonese BCoS and the other external cognitive tests, providing evidence for convergent validity of the Cantonese BCoS. The screen was also able to generate measures of cognitive functions that were relatively uncontaminated by the presence of aphasia. This study suggests good reliability and validity of the Cantonese version of the BCoS. The Cantonese BCoS is a very promising tool for the detection of cognitive problems in Cantonese speakers.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Linguistics 4 7%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,769,135
of 14,535,828 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,277
of 2,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,247
of 247,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#82
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,535,828 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 247,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.