Background Resilience is an important positive construct supporting people with dementia; however, validated self-report instruments for this population remain limited, and no Turkish version is currently available. Objective This study aimed to adapt the Bangor Dementia Resilience Scale (BDRS) into Turkish and to evaluate its psychometric properties in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early-stage dementia. Methods This cross-sectional psychometric study included 118 individuals with MCI or early-stage dementia. The translation and cultural adaptation process followed established guidelines. Structural validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Convergent validity was assessed using Pearson correlations between the Turkish version of the BDRS (T-BDRS) scores and quality of life (QoL-AD), as well as clinical variables including Mini-Mental State Examination, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Katz Activities of Daily Living. Reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, item–total correlations, and test–retest reliability (n = 30). Results EFA supported a five-factor structure explaining 68.32% of the total variance. The internal consistency of the total scale was excellent (Cronbach's α = 0.946; ω = 0.946). Item–total correlations ranged from 0.604 to 0.787. Test–retest reliability demonstrated excellent stability (ICC = 0.993). Convergent validity was supported by a strong positive correlation with QoL-AD (r = 0.819, 95% CI: 0.744–0.872, p < 0.001). Conclusions The T-BDRS demonstrated satisfactory validity and reliability for assessing resilience in individuals with MCI and early-stage dementia. It represents a promising tool for research and clinical practice, supporting the assessment of positive psychosocial outcomes in dementia care.

Background Women with surgical menopause (WSM) may be at increased risk of cognitive decline and dementia because of abrupt estrogen deprivation and associated health-related changes. This study aimed to examine factors associated with motivation for dementia-preventive lifestyle change among WSM. Methods This cross-sectional study included 75 WSM recruited from a university hospital in Türkiye between May and August 2025. Data were collected using the Menopause Rating Scale (MRS), Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS), Australian National University Alzheimer’s Disease Risk Index–Short Form (ANU-ADRI), and Motivation to Change Lifestyle for Dementia Risk Reduction Scale (MOCHAD-10). Multiple linear regression analysis was performed after adjustment for sociodemographic covariates to identify factors associated with motivation for dementia-preventive lifestyle change. Results The mean age of participants was 49.14 ± 5.69 years. Higher ANU-ADRI scores were significantly associated with lower MOCHAD-10 scores (β = −0.32, p = 0.048), while older age at surgical menopause was negatively associated with motivation for lifestyle change (β = −0.32, p = 0.043). Dementia knowledge was not significantly associated with motivation (β = 0.16, p = 0.210). Menopausal symptom burden showed a positive trend toward association with motivation, although the relationship did not reach statistical significance (β = 0.25, p = 0.052). Conclusions Lower dementia risk and younger age at surgical menopause were associated with greater motivation for dementia-preventive lifestyle change among WSM. Dementia-related knowledge was not independently associated with motivation. These findings suggest that motivation for dementia-preventive behaviors in this population may be influenced by multiple health-related factors and warrant further investigation in larger longitudinal studies.

Background:Dementia is one of the main public health challenges worldwide. To evaluate awareness programs, it is necessary to use validated scales, such as the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS), the Dementia Attitude Scale (DAS), and the Confidence in Dementia Care Scale (CODE), none of which exist in Russian. Objective:The present study aims to translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the DKAS-R, DAS-R, and CODE-R within the Russian-speaking population. Methods:A cross-sectional online study was conducted using convenience sampling (N = 533). Validation included assessing reliability (internal consistency and four-week test-retest reliability of a subgroup of 130 participants), analyzing structural validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and assessing construct validity through the known-groups method. Additionally, an item analysis was conducted. The STROBE checklist was used to report this study. Results:Acceptable to excellent internal reliability was found for DKAS-R (α/ω = 0.81), DKAS-R20 (α/ω = 0.81), DAS-R (α = 0.81, ω = 0.84), DAS-R14 (α/ω = 0.84), and CODE-R (α = 0.89, ω = 0.88). The proposed factor structures were confirmed after minor modifications (item reductions and correlated residuals). The known-groups analysis revealed that all scales could distinguish between individuals with or without experience with people with dementia and with or without participation in a dementia course. Retest-reliability was moderate for DAS-R/DAS-R14, good for the DKAS-R/DKAS-R20 and CODE-R. Conclusions:This study provides the first psychometric validation of the DKAS-R, DAS-R, and CODE-R for the Russian-speaking populations. After minor adaptations, all three scales demonstrated robust structure and reliability, supporting their use in research.

Background and Objectives:Informal caregivers of people living with dementia are susceptible to significant caregiver burden. Strengthening self-efficacy may alleviate burden by improving caregivers' ability to persist in the face of challenging situations. To provide a relevant assessment tool, this study aimed to translate the Revised Scale for Caregiving Self-Efficacy (RSCSE) into German and evaluate its psychometric properties. Research Design and Methods:Cross-sectional data with a test-retest subsample were collected online from June 2024 to March 2025. Reliability was assessed via internal consistency, item analysis, and test-retest reliability. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate structural validity. To assess construct and convergent validity, we included the following scales: Confidence in Dementia Care Scale, Benefits of Being a Caregiver Scale, Brief Resilience Scale, Perceived Social Support Questionnaire, Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results:The convenience sample consisted of 127 individuals, with 60 taking part in the retest after 4 weeks. The subscales in this sample demonstrate high internal consistency (α/ω = 0.92/0.94) and moderate-to-good retest reliability. The CFA demonstrated a good model fit [χ2(85) = 132.599, p < .001, CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.067 (90% CI: 0.044, 0.088), SRMR = 0.057], with good-to-excellent factor loadings (0.66-0.97). All included scales, except the DKAS, show significant correlations, supporting the validity of the RSCSE. Discussion and Implications:These results support the use of the RSCSE within the German population to assess the self-efficacy of caregivers of people living with dementia.

Introduction:The Kogan Attitudes toward Older People Scale (KAOP) has been translated and validated in numerous languages, although a German version does not yet exist. The present study aimed to translate, adapt, and psychometrically evaluate the KAOP for German-speaking populations. Methods:A convenience sample of 419 participants completed the 34-item German KAOP Scale (KAOP-D-34), 211 of whom took part in the retest after four weeks. Reliability was assessed using internal consistency, item analysis, and test-retest reliability. Structural validity was explored using principal component analysis (PCA), and construct validity was tested using the known-groups method. Convergent validity was assessed utilizing the Aging Semantic Differential (ASD), Age Stereotypes (AS), and Future Selves (FS). Results:The KAOP-D-34 demonstrated good internal consistency (α = 0.870, ω = 0.863) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.846, 95% CI: 0.802; 0.880). Items 7 and 8 were excluded due to poor content validity, increasing the reliability of the final 32-item scale (α = 0.876, ω = 0.867). PCA revealed a two-factor solution accounting for 30% of the total variance. Known-groups analyses showed significant differences in KAOP-D-32 scores according to gender, age group, educational level, and self-reported attitudes toward older adults. The final KAOP-D-32 total scores showed a significant correlation with the ASD (r = -0.40). Most AS and FS domains correlated significantly with KAOP-D32, except finances. Furthermore, higher KAOP-D-32 scores were associated with older age, better self-rated health, and greater life satisfaction. Conclusion:These results support that the KAOP-D-32 is a psychometrically robust instrument for assessing attitudes toward older adults.

BackgroundDeaf individuals continue to face complex challenges in both accessing healthcare and obtaining information about dementia. Despite this, research into their perceptions of dementia and the need of tailored awareness programs remains limited. In response, a dementia awareness program specially designed for Deaf communities is being developed as part of the Erasmus+ project "DeSign".ObjectiveThis study provides the groundwork for that initiative by exploring (a) what Deaf individuals in Austria, Germany, and Greece know and how they perceive dementia, (b) the current challenges in accessing information and healthcare, and (c) their preferences for the design of specialized, accessible dementia awareness courses.MethodsSix semi-structured focus groups (two per country) were held in the respective national sign languages with 4-14 Deaf participants, including dementia experts, family caregivers, and general community members. Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis.ResultsDeaf participants from the general population demonstrated significant gaps in dementia knowledge, including misconceptions about early signs, causes, and risk factors. Dementia-related information in sign language was described as nearly non-existent. Participants highlighted the need for tailored awareness courses, covering dementia basics, as well as information on available specialized healthcare services and resources in their country. The preferred format for such a course should be delivered in sign language and incorporate culturally appropriate methods of information sharing.ConclusionsTailored awareness courses in sign language are crucial to address knowledge gaps and improve access to information for Deaf communities. This study provides the groundwork for developing such courses within the Erasmus+ project.*DeSign: Raising Awareness for Dementia in Deaf Older Adults in Europe.

Vaccinations are among the most effective interventions against infectious diseases such as measles, influenza, and COVID-19. Nevertheless, there are significant differences in vaccination readiness. The aim of this study was to validate the 7 C scale, which measures seven psychological factors comprising general vaccination readiness, in both German and Greek, and to investigate differences in vaccination behavior between a German and a Greek sample. A cross-sectional study was conducted with a convenience sample of 576 study participants, of whom 319 responded to the online survey in German and 257 in Greek. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity through the known-groups method, item analysis, and floor and ceiling effects. The two samples differed significantly in terms of demographic data such as age, gender and education, as well as in religiosity and vaccination behavior. The German sample showed a higher vaccination rate for most vaccinations, except for vaccinations against hepatitis A, varicella, and meningococcal disease, wheras in the Greek sample, there were significantly more “I don’t know” responses regarding vaccination status. The 7 C scale of vaccination readiness demonstrated acceptable to good psychometric properties in terms of both internal consistency and construct validity in both samples, although there were some weaknesses in the component that measures calculationR in both the 21-item and 7-item versions. The 7-component structure was confirmed using a confirmatory factor analysis. The German and the Greek samples differ primarily in the components confidence, complacencyR, and conspiracyR, with significantly higher values in the German sample. Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the 7 C scale had the lowest predictive value for measles vaccination and the highest for COVID-19. The German and Greek versions of the 7 C scale are invaluable research tools for investigating vaccination readiness. A comprehensive understanding of the underlying factors contributing to vaccine hesitancy is imperative for the development of culturally tailored educational initiatives. These initiatives must be designed to address prevalent misconceptions regarding vaccination, with the objective of enhancing vaccination rates, and promoting public health.

The paucity of data on the knowledge and attitudes of Deaf people towards dementia is well documented, as is the limited access to dementia services in this population due to lack of interpreters and absence of health professionals who use sign language (SL). Therefore, delivering dementia awareness in Deaf people is assumed as a high priority which is also related to the seeking of relevant diagnostic services. Additionally, till now there are almost no screening tools for detecting early dementia signs which are adapted in national SL. To address this gap, the current Erasmus+ project aims to identify attitudes and knowledge about dementia among the Deaf population using relevant psychometric tools and subsequently create dementia raising awareness seminars, tailored to the cultural background and norms of the Deaf communities in Austria, Germany, Greece, and Italy. Secondly, the only existing Cognitive Screening Test (CST), originally adapted in British SL from Atkinson et al. (2015) for detecting dementia in Deaf older adults will be also adapted in Austrian and Greek SL. Initially, results from the tools measuring dementia attitudes and knowledge will be presented. Afterwards, the design of the structured seminars delivered in Deaf communities will be also displayed. Finally, the adapted versions of the Austrian and Greek CST administered in Deaf older adults in both countries will be available. The final goal is to increase dementia raising awareness seminars in Deaf people from Austria, Germany, Greece and Italy, as well as achieve dementia detection in this population by providing them with diagnostic and care pathways.

INTRODUCTION:The Consequentialist Scale (CS) and the Ethical Standards of Judgment Questionnaire (ESJQ) are instruments developed to evaluate the extent of moral reasoning in relation to the two pivotal factors that appear to influence moral decision-making: the degree of harm or benefit produced by the action in question and the consistency of the action with moral norms. In other words, they assess the propensity to utilitarian versus deontological moral reasoning. In contrast, the Ethical Position Questionnaire (EPQ-5) conceptualizes ethical idealism and ethical relativism as meaning-independent, orthogonal dimensions. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of German versions of the three mentioned scales in a sample of native German speakers. METHODS:A convenience sample of 263 participants completed the online survey. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity through the known-groups method, retest-reliability with a subgroup of n = 102, and floor and ceiling effects. This study used the STROBE checklist. RESULTS:The CS and EPQ-5 showed strong psychometric properties without any noticeable weaknesses. In contrast, the ESJQ displayed significant shortcomings across all analyses, with low internal consistency and poor results in both item analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. The results indicated that deontology, formalism, and idealism were positively correlated with age, while only idealism correlated significantly with gender, with females scoring higher on the idealism scale. A positive correlation was observed between deontology and formalism with religiosity. With regard to personality, deontology and idealism demonstrated a positive correlation with conscientiousness, whereas utilitarianism exhibited a negative correlation with conscientiousness. A positive correlation between consequentialism and openness was also identified, while a negative correlation between formalism and agreeableness was evident. CONCLUSION:The German versions of the CS and EPQ-5 are reliable and valid instruments for measuring the propensity toward utilitarian and deontological approaches, as well as ethical idealism and relativism. The scales, therefore, serve as invaluable tools for research, training, and professional practice, facilitating comprehension of the aspects of conscious reflection on ethical dilemmas in practice and of responsible action. The ESJQ, however, did not perform well psychometrically in the German translation, as its internal consistency is questionable.

IntroductionThe development of modern life sciences has expanded our biomedical capabilities to an unprecedented degree. For example, genetic testing can be used to predict hereditary predisposition or susceptibility to certain diseases. The development of gene scissors such as CRISPR/Cas makes it possible to repair the disease gene or introduce a protective gene in somatic cells but also in germline cells, leading to permanent changes of the genome. But is everything we “can” do morally justifiable? To what extent does the moral status of the living being, autonomy, and privacy influence the decision of whether something is morally “good” or “bad”? There is a lack of valid instruments to study the moral judgment of genetic technologies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to translate and validate the “Genetic Technologies Questionnaire” (GTQ) and the short version of the “Conventional Technologies Questionnaire” (CTQ5) into German.MethodsConvenience sampling (N = 317) was used to conduct a cross-sectional online study. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, known group construct validity, tests for floor and ceiling effects, and retest reliability with a subset of n = 69. Correlational analyses were conducted with education, age, prior knowledge of genetics, religiosity, conventional technologies, and prior genetic testing. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting.ResultsThe GTQ30 (Cronbach’s α = 0.938) and GTQ20 (α = 0.940) are reliable and stable instruments for testing the moral judgment of lay people, while the GTQ5 (α = 0.857) and CTQ5 (α = 0.697) showed some weaknesses. Conventional technologies were judged morally better than genetic technologies, and genetic testing considered better than genome editing. Two additional versions were validated: the GTQ-Human (GTQ-H), using all items relating to humans, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS), including one item per different group of living beings for genetic testing and one for genome editing.ConclusionThe GTQ is a valid instrument that is now available in shorter versions for different areas of research: the GTQ-MS for philosophical questions addressing moral status and the GTQ-H for biomedical and psychological questions related to research, prognosis, diagnosis, and therapy in humans.

BackgroundDeaf individuals face barriers in accessing healthcare for dementia and Alzheimer's disease and are often overlooked in research. Deaf-friendly scales in German Sign Language (DGS) are urgently needed to ensure inclusive and equitable dementia care for Deaf individuals.ObjectiveThe aim of the study is the linguistic and cultural adaptation/validation of the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS-D), the Dementia Attitude Scale (DAS-D), and the Confidence in Dementia Care Scale (CODE-D) into DGS.MethodThe three scales were adapted into DGS using a collaborative translation process involving Deaf and hearing bilingual signers. A convenience sample of 205 Deaf participants answered the DKAS-DGS and DAS-DGS; a subsample answered the CODE-DGS (n = 160) online via Google Forms or as a pencil-and-paper version in person. Psychometric validation included internal consistency, structural and construct validity. For the DKAS-DGS an item analysis was conducted.ResultsInternal consistency was acceptable to good for all scales. The removal of five items from the DKAS-DGS and four from the DAS-DGS led to improvements in structural validity for both. The CODE-DGS one-factor structure showed good model fit. Construct validity was confirmed, with participants with practical or professional experience with people living with dementia scoring higher on all scales. Item analysis of the DKAS-DGS revealed challenges in translation, as well as the need for accessible, tailored dementia education for the Deaf community.ConclusionsThe three scales are valuable tools for measuring dementia knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in care among DGS-signers and may be used in future research settings.

Introduction:Advancements in life sciences have significantly boosted biomedical capabilities. Genetic testing forecasts hereditary traits and disease susceptibility, while CRISPR/Cas allows permanent genome alterations. However, ethical considerations arise regarding the morality of these capabilities, particularly concerning the moral status, autonomy, and privacy of living beings. The lack of valid instruments to assess moral judgment in genetic technologies highlights the need for this study, aiming to translate and validate the "Genetic Technologies Questionnaire" (GTQ) and the short version of the "Conventional Technologies Questionnaire" (CTQ5) into Greek. As the full version of the GTQ with 30 questions could be too extensive for some studies, we also tested other versions: The short versions GTQ20-GR and GTQ5-GR which were already presented in the original study, as well as a version which included questions solely about humans (GTQ-H-GR) and is intended for use in human research and therapy, and the GTQ-Moral Status (GTQ-MS-GR), which included questions about genetic testing and gene editing in different living beings to investigate differences in moral status. Methods:A cross-sectional study involved 250 participants who completed an online questionnaire, assessing internal consistency, structural validity, known-groups validity, floor/ceiling effects, and retest reliability (subset of 50 participants). Correlational analyses explored relationships with education, age, genetic knowledge, religiosity, and genetic testing experience. The study followed the STROBE checklist for reporting. Results:The GTQ-GR (Cronbach's α = 0.929) and GTQ20-GR (α = 0.935) exhibit high reliability and stability in assessing moral judgment among lay people, whereas the GTQ5-GR (α = 0.866) and CTQ5-GR (α = 0.758) displayed some weaknesses. Participants tended to rate conventional technologies more favorably than genetic technologies, with genetic testing perceived more positively than genome editing. The two additional derived versions, GTQ-H-GR (α = 0.859) and GTQ-MS-GR (α = 0.787), also demonstrated solid psychometric characteristics. Conclusion:The GTQ-GR is a valid and reliable questionnaire with strong psychometric properties and is now available in Greek.

Introduction: Advances in biosciences have significantly expanded our knowledge and capabilities in medicine and technology. Genetic tests can now predict hereditary predisposition or susceptibility to diseases, while gene-editing tools like CRISPR/Cas enable easy repair of disease genes in both somatic and germline cells, ensuring permanent genome correction. Despite these advancements, there is a shortage of valid instruments for studying the knowledge about these technologies. To fill this gap, our study aims to translate and validate various scales to effectively measure the public’s knowledge of genetics.Methods: A convenience sample of N = 567 (Germany n = 317, Greece n = 250) participants completed a Google Forms questionnaire between December 2022 and June 2023, which included the General Knowledge of Genes and Heredity (GKGH), Knowledge about Gene-Environment Interaction (KGEI), and Knowledge of Modern Genetics and Genomics (KMGG) questionnaires. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity, and retest reliability with a subset of n = 72 (DE) and n = 50 (GR). Correlation analyses and group differences were evaluated for gender, education, religiosity, age, prior experience with genetic testing, and preferences toward potential providers of genetic testing. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting.Results: The GKGH exhibited low values in internal consistency and item analysis, along with a ceiling effect within the German group. However, it demonstrated good values in retest and construct validity. In the Greek group, all properties were highly satisfactory. The KMGG consistently displayed excellent properties across all analyses, whereas the KGEI only showed convincing results in construct validity and item analysis.Discussion: The GKGH and KMGG demonstrated strong psychometric properties with varying difficulty levels dependent on the sample, with the German sample demonstrating a notably higher understanding of genetic technologies. Despite displaying acceptable properties, the KGEI fell short of measuring what its title suggests. Participants’ level of education showed a significant correlation with knowledge of genetic technologies, and only in the Greek sample did experiences with genetic tests influence knowledge. Preferences regarding availability of genetic testing are comparable between the two countries, with variations influenced by factors such as age, gender and religiosity.

Background: Attitudes, motivations, and barriers to pre-symptomatic screening for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in the general population are unclear, and validated measurement tools are lacking. Objective: Translation and validation of the German version of the “Perceptions regarding pRE-symptomatic Alzheimer’s Disease Screening” (PRE-ADS) questionnaire. Methods: A convenience sample (N = 256) was recruited via an online platform. Validation of the PRE-ADS-D consisted of assessments of reliability, structural validity using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and construct validity using known-group tests. A subscale “Acceptability of Screening”, with 5 PRE-ADS-D items, was extracted to measure acceptance of screening in clinical practice. The STROBE checklist was used for reporting. Results: EFA revealed a three-factor model for the PRE-ADS-D. Acceptable to good internal consistency was found for the 25-item scale (α= 0.78), as well as for the three factors “Concerns about Screening” (α= 0.85), “Intention to be Screened” (α= 0.87), and “Preventive Health Behaviors” (α= 0.81). Construct validity was confirmed for both the 25-item PRE-ADS-D and the “Acceptability of Screening” scale (α= 0.91). Overall, 51.2% of the participants showed a preference for screening. Non-parametric tests were conducted to further explore group differences of the sample. Conclusions: The PRE-ADS-D is a reliable and valid tool to measure attitudes, motives, and barriers regarding pre-symptomatic dementia screening in the German-speaking general population. Additionally, the subscale “Acceptability of Screening” demonstrated good construct validity and reliability, suggesting its promising potential as a practical tool in clinical practice.

Background: The number of people with dementia (PwD) in acute care hospitals is steadily increasing, posing a challenge for those who work closely with patients. To date, no German study has addressed the extent to which prospective nurses benefit from dementia training in terms of their knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in caring for PwD. Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate whether a validated dementia training for registered nurses can positively change nursing students’ knowledge about dementia, their attitude toward PwD, and their confidence in caring for them, as well as the stability over time. Methods: In the one-group pre-test, post-test design, a sample of 81 nursing students was recruited from two nursing schools in Germany between May and June 2023. They completed a questionnaire consisting of the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale, the Dementia Attitude Scale, and the Confidence in Dementia Scale, as well as sociodemographic questions and experiences with PwD at three measurement points. The data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon test and repeated measures ANOVA. Results: The training has a significant effect on knowledge in dementia (z = –5.07, p < 0.001), attitude toward PwD (z = –4.42, p < 0.001), and confidence in caring for them at the post-test (z = –3. 21, p < 0.001, r = 0.36). The repeated measures ANOVA shows stability over time only for dementia knowledge. Conclusions: The results indicate the need for further research in this field as well as the validation of the dementia training specifically addressing nursing students.