Home › Research › Risk factors
Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of a Questionnaire Assessing Nursing Students’ Perceived Capability to Recognise Dementia in Women
Ratnayake SGK, Endrawes G, You W.. Preprints.org, 2026-10-26
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Aim: To develop and undertake a preliminary psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire assessing nursing students’ capability to recognise and respond to possible early dementia in women, and to examine factors associated with questionnaire scores. Design A cross-sectional questionnaire-development and preliminary psychometric evaluation study. Methods An expert-reviewed and pilot-tested 25-item questionnaire was administered to Australian entry-to-practice nursing students. The analytic sample comprised 133 non-preview responses with more than 50% survey progress. Item performance, principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation and parallel analysis, internal consistency, preliminary construct validity, known-groups differences and multivariable associations were examined. Results Item-level missingness ranged from 0.0% to 3.0%, and corrected item–total correlations ranged from .520 to .719. All items demonstrated ceiling effects. Exploratory factor analysis of 114 complete cases, supported by parallel analysis, identified two correlated factors: contextual, safety and professional response (15 items) and symptom recognition and clinical interpretation (10 items). Sampling adequacy was good (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = .869), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), and the two-factor solution explained 50.96% of the variance. Internal consistency was high for Factor 1 (α = .932; ω = .935), Factor 2 (α = .907; ω = .908) and the total 25-item set (α = .945). After adjustment for older-adult placement and study year, dementia-specific education was associated with higher Factor 1 (B = 0.297, p = .012) and Factor 2 scores (B = 0.497, p < .001). Conclusion The questionnaire demonstrated promising preliminary structure and internal consistency. Substantial ceiling effects, borderline cross-loadings and the modest complete-case sample require confirmation and refinement in a larger independent sample.
Key findings
- Aim: To develop and undertake a preliminary psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire assessing nursing students’ capability to recognise and respond to possible early dementia in women, and to examine factors associated with questionnaire scores.
- Results Item-level missingness ranged from 0.0% to 3.0%, and corrected item–total correlations ranged from .520 to .719.
- Sampling adequacy was good (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = .869), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p < .001), and the two-factor solution explained 50.96% of the variance.
- After adjustment for older-adult placement and study year, dementia-specific education was associated with higher Factor 1 (B = 0.297, p = .012) and Factor 2 scores (B = 0.497, p < .001).
- Conclusion The questionnaire demonstrated promising preliminary structure and internal consistency.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Effect size0.0% to 3.0%; 50.96%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 31 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for sample size, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 31 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Preprints.org) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 19 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 19 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 31 out of 100. |
| Total | 31 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Ratnayake, S. G. K., Endrawes, G., & You, W. (2026). Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of a Questionnaire Assessing Nursing Students’ Perceived Capability to Recognise Dementia in Women. Preprints.org. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.2434.v1
Vancouver
Ratnayake SGK, Endrawes G, You W. Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of a Questionnaire Assessing Nursing Students’ Perceived Capability to Recognise Dementia in Women. Preprints.org. 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202610.2434.v1.
BibTeX
@article{ratnayake2026-f77179fb,
author = {Ratnayake, S. G. K. and Endrawes, G. and You, W.},
title = {{Development and Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of a Questionnaire Assessing Nursing Students’ Perceived Capability to Recognise Dementia in Women}},
journal = {Preprints.org},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.20944/preprints202610.2434.v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202610.2434.v1}
}