Home › Research › Disparities
Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups
Teresi JA, Golden RR, Cross P, Gurland B, Kleinman M, Wilder D.. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 1995-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
A study of item bias in standard cognitive screening measures was conducted in a sample of Afro-American, Hispanic and non-Hispanic white elderly respondents who were part of a dementia case registry study. The methods of item-response theory were applied to identify biased items. Both cross-cultural and high and low education groups were examined to determine which items were biased. Out of 50 cognitive items examined from six widely used cognitive screening measures, 16 were identified as biased for either high and low education groups or ethnic/racial group membership.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teresi, J. A., Golden, R. R., Cross, P., Gurland, B., Kleinman, M., & Wilder, D. (1995). Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. Journal of clinical epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00159-n
Vancouver
Teresi JA, Golden RR, Cross P, Gurland B, Kleinman M, Wilder D. Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1995. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(94)00159-n. PMID: 7722601.
BibTeX
@article{teresi1995-7722601,
author = {Teresi, J. A. and Golden, R. R. and Cross, P. and Gurland, B. and Kleinman, M. and Wilder, D.},
title = {{Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups}},
journal = {Journal of clinical epidemiology},
year = {1995},
doi = {10.1016/0895-4356(94)00159-n},
pmid = {7722601},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(94)00159-n}
}
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.
Key findings
- A study of item bias in standard cognitive screening measures was conducted in a sample of Afro-American, Hispanic and non-Hispanic white elderly respondents who were part of a dementia case registry study.
- The methods of item-response theory were applied to identify biased items.
- Both cross-cultural and high and low education groups were examined to determine which items were biased.
- Out of 50 cognitive items examined from six widely used cognitive screening measures, 16 were identified as biased for either high and low education groups or ethnic/racial group membership.
Why it matters
Out of 50 cognitive items from six widely used screening measures, 16 were identified as biased for high versus low education groups or for ethnic/racial group membership. This concerns fairness of cognitive screening tools and does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Disparities →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 41 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical epidemiology) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology: journal h-index 339 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1995 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 5 / 7 | Cited 141 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 4.3 citations a year over 33 year(s) since 1995 |
| Impact for its field and year | 3 / 6 | Cited 3.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 2 / 6 | Cited by 7 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 3 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 2 / 3 | Columbia University: institution h-index 1,824 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 4 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 7722601) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00159-n
- PubMed: 7722601
- Original source →
- Free full text: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
7 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in Disparities
Also tagged “examination”
840 studies in the library carry the topic tag “examination”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 840 tagged studies.