BackgroundIn behavioural assessment, information can be gathered from internally referenced self-reports or from proxy informants.AimsThis study aimed to fine-tune a brief but reliable method for evaluating the proxy accuracy in cases where responses obtained from adult and older adults' patient cannot be considered reliable.MethodsWe generated a set of items reflecting both overt and covert behaviours related to the basic instrumental activities of daily living. The psychometric properties of the content, factorial, and criterium validity of these items were then checked. The Proxy Reliability Questionnaire-ProRe was created. We tested the frequency of "I don't know" responses as a measure of proxy reliability in a sample of healthy older adults and their proxies, and in a second sample of proxy respondents who answered questions about their parents.ResultsAs expected, response precision was lower for items characterizing covert behaviours; items about covert compared to overt behaviours generated more "I don't know" answers. Proxies provided less "I don't know" responses when evaluating the parent, they claimed they knew better. Moreover, we tried to validate our approach using response confidence. Encouragingly, these results also showed differences in the expected direction in confidence between overt and covert behaviours.ConclusionsThe present study encourages clinicians/researchers to how well the proxy the patient know each other, the tendency of proxies to exhibit, for example, response bias when responding to questions about patients' covert behaviours, and more importantly, the reliability of informants in providing a clinical assessment of neurocognitive diseases associated with aging.

Measuring the reliability of proxy respondents in behavioural assessments: an open question

Antonella Lopez
;
Luigi Tinella;Alessandro Caffò;Andrea Bosco
2023-01-01

Abstract

BackgroundIn behavioural assessment, information can be gathered from internally referenced self-reports or from proxy informants.AimsThis study aimed to fine-tune a brief but reliable method for evaluating the proxy accuracy in cases where responses obtained from adult and older adults' patient cannot be considered reliable.MethodsWe generated a set of items reflecting both overt and covert behaviours related to the basic instrumental activities of daily living. The psychometric properties of the content, factorial, and criterium validity of these items were then checked. The Proxy Reliability Questionnaire-ProRe was created. We tested the frequency of "I don't know" responses as a measure of proxy reliability in a sample of healthy older adults and their proxies, and in a second sample of proxy respondents who answered questions about their parents.ResultsAs expected, response precision was lower for items characterizing covert behaviours; items about covert compared to overt behaviours generated more "I don't know" answers. Proxies provided less "I don't know" responses when evaluating the parent, they claimed they knew better. Moreover, we tried to validate our approach using response confidence. Encouragingly, these results also showed differences in the expected direction in confidence between overt and covert behaviours.ConclusionsThe present study encourages clinicians/researchers to how well the proxy the patient know each other, the tendency of proxies to exhibit, for example, response bias when responding to questions about patients' covert behaviours, and more importantly, the reliability of informants in providing a clinical assessment of neurocognitive diseases associated with aging.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s40520-023-02501-z.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Lopez_et_al_2023_ACER
Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 938.4 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
938.4 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/483020
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact