ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Gatos Clinical Test questionnaire in patients with severe dementia.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Gatos Clinical Test (GCT) Questionnaire is an effective tool to evaluate the vitality, survival, and maintenance of basic skills potential in patients with severe dementia. However, it has not yet been verified for use in China. Objectives: This study aims to adapt the GCT questionnaire across cultures and utilize a cross-sectional design to verify its reliability and validity in people with severe dementia in China. Methods: The original questionnaire was translated into Chinese according to the Brislin two-person translation-return translation method. This study conducted a questionnaire survey on 276 severe dementia patients in China. The patients were 52 to 88 years old, with an average age (78.34 ± 6.42) years old, with 45.3% of men ( Results: The Chinese version of the GCT questionnaire consisted of 14 items. Factor analysis extracted three common factors with a cumulative variance contribution rate of 65.513%. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated satisfactory construct validity for the questionnaire. The questionnaire's content validity index was 0.91. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.898, test-retest reliability was 0.959, and inter-rater reliability was 0.986. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the GCT questionnaire has good reliability and validity and can be an effective tool for clinical and community healthcare professionals to assess patients with severe dementia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.