Home › Research › How common it is
Subjective word-finding complaints in older adults: Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-reported questionnaire
El-Khaldi, F.; Marier, A.; Vitali, P.; PREVENT-AD Research Group, ; Villeneuve, S.; Montembeault, M.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-09-14
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
ObjectivesSubjective word-finding complaints (SWFC) are among the most frequent cognitive complaints in cognitively unimpaired older adults (CU). However, no comprehensive tools currently exist to assess this phenomenon. This study aimed to conduct a preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel SWFC questionnaire, better characterize SWFC, and establish their demographic/clinical correlates. Methods287 older adults (192 CU, 95 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)) from the PREVENT-AD cohort completed a novel 29-item SWFC questionnaire available in French and English. Internal consistency and construct validity were evaluated. Relationships of demographic/clinical variables with total and domain-specific SWFC scores were analyzed. ResultsInternal consistency was strong (Cronbachs Alpha=0.926). Difficulty remembering the names of famous people was the most frequently endorsed item (83%), whereas items related to the social impacts of SWFC were least frequently endorsed. Exploratory factor analysis revealed six distinct factors: SWFC coping strategies, fluency difficulties and affective impacts, SWFC-related errors, proper noun retrieval difficulties, social impacts of SWFC, and common noun retrieval difficulties. Older age was associated with higher total SWFC and greater proper and common noun retrieval difficulties, female sex with greater proper noun retrieval difficulties, higher education with lesser social impacts of SWFC, and MCI status with greater social impacts of SWFC. DiscussionThese findings demonstrate that SWFC are multidimensional rather than a unitary construct in aging. This novel questionnaire provides a promising tool for characterizing the type and severity of specific SWFC and may facilitate future research examining which complaint profiles are associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including Alzheimers disease.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
El-Khaldi, F., Marier, A., Vitali, P., PREVENT-AD Research Group,, Villeneuve, S., & Montembeault, M. (2026). Subjective word-finding complaints in older adults: Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-reported questionnaire. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362870
Vancouver
El-Khaldi F, Marier A, Vitali P, PREVENT-AD Research Group,, Villeneuve S, Montembeault M. Subjective word-finding complaints in older adults: Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-reported questionnaire. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.11.26362870.
BibTeX
@article{elkhaldi2026-d22c1bc5,
author = {El-Khaldi, F. and Marier, A. and Vitali, P. and {PREVENT-AD Research Group,} and Villeneuve, S. and Montembeault, M.},
title = {{Subjective word-finding complaints in older adults: Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of a novel self-reported questionnaire}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.11.26362870},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362870}
}
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
- Exploratory factor analysis revealed six distinct factors: SWFC coping strategies, fluency difficulties and affective impacts, SWFC-related errors, proper noun retrieval difficulties, social impacts of SWFC, and common noun retrieval difficulties.
- Older age was associated with higher total SWFC and greater proper and common noun retrieval difficulties, female sex with greater proper noun retrieval difficulties, higher education with lesser social impacts of SWFC, and MCI status with greater social impacts of SWFC.
- This novel questionnaire provides a promising tool for characterizing the type and severity of specific SWFC and may facilitate future research examining which complaint profiles are associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including Alzheimers disease.
Why it matters
This study developed and evaluated a questionnaire for subjective word-finding complaints in older adults and found six distinct factors and some demographic and clinical correlates. It is about measuring a symptom, not about treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 22 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. 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 impact for its field and year, so that was left out: it earned 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on, which is 22 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” 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 | 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 2 / 4 | Last-listed author Maxime Montembeault: h-index 22 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | McGill University: institution h-index 1,373 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 1 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 3 institution(s) in 1 country |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 21 / 94 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 94 points we could judge it on is 22 out of 100. |
| Total | 22 / 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
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Related studies in How common it is
Also in How common it is
80 studies in the library are filed under How common it is with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The How common it is hub.