Psychiatry Investig Search


Psychiatry Investig > Volume 21(6); 2024 > Article
Kim, Chu, Oh, Lee, Choi, and Kim: Subjective Cognitive Decline in Community-Dwelling Older Adults With Objectively Normal Cognition: Mediation by Depression and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living



Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) refers to self-reported memory loss despite normal cognitive function and is considered a preclinical stage of Alzheimer’s disease. This study aimed to examine the mediating effects of depression and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) on the association between the scoring of Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q).


A sample of 139 community-dwelling older adults aged 65-79 with normal cognitive function completed the SCD-Q, a comprehensive neuropsychological battery, and functional/psychiatric scales. We conducted 1) a correlation analysis between SCD-Q scores and other variables and 2) a path analysis to examine the mediating effects of depression and IADL on the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q.


CDR-SB was found to be indirectly associated with SCD-Q, with depressive symptoms mediating this relationship. However, no direct association was observed between SCD-Q and CDR-SB. Additionally, IADL was not associated with SCD-Q and did not mediate the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q. The model fit was acceptable (minimum discrepancy function by degrees of freedom divided [CMIN/DF]=1.585, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]=0.065, comparative fit index [CFI]=0.955, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI]=0.939).


Our results suggest that SCD-Q is influenced by depressive symptoms, but not by IADL. The role of depressive symptoms as a mediator between CDR-SB and SCD-Q indicates that psychological factors may contribute to the perception of SCD. Therefore, interventions targeting depression may mitigate the concerns associated with SCD and reduce feelings of worse performance compared to others of the same age group.


Approximately 12% of adults over the age of 65 report experiencing subjective cognitive decline (SCD), which is characterized by self-perceived cognitive impairment despite normal performance on standardized cognitive tests [1]. In recent years, SCD has garnered significant attention for its potential to predict the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and related symptoms [2-5]. Studies have identified SCD as a key predictor of future mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, highlighting the importance of recognizing SCD as an early indicator of major cognitive decline [6,7].
However, there is a gap concerning which specific aspects of SCD are considered risk factors that align with existing neuropsychological measures and ultimately lead to an AD diagnosis. The international consortium of the subjective cognitive decline initiative developed a conceptual framework by consensus that extends AD to the phase before MCI, during which cognitive tests may not detect any deficits [8-11]. Relying solely on SCD is inadequate for the reliable detection of preclinical AD, highlighting the need for exploring various cognitive domains beyond memory [4,5,12].
Previous research suggests that depressive symptoms play a crucial role in influencing how individuals perceive and report cognitive decline [13-15]. In prodromal AD trials, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), a measure of cognitive and functional impairment, is widely used as an inclusive primary outcome measure. Research suggests that depressive symptoms, rather than CDR-SB scores, are more predictive of reported cognitive complaints [16-19]. Another study has linked depressive symptoms and objective cognitive impairment to SCD, suggesting that both affect and reported impairments can influence subjective complaints [20].
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) has been proposed as a potential indicator of cognitive decline and AD risk beyond SCD [12,21]. Particularly in AD, studies suggest IADL performance is more closely linked to executive function than SCD itself, indicating potential struggles for those with SCD in tasks like shopping and managing finances [22]. SCD can predict future declines in memory and IADL performance, even after controlling for depressive symptoms, highlighting the importance of considering SCD in relation to functional abilities [23].
The current understanding of how objective cognitive decline relates to SCD remains unclear, despite evidence linking depression and functional limitations to SCD. There is conflicting evidence regarding whether depressive symptoms overshadow the cognitive and functional predictive value of CDR-SB in prodromal AD trials, while functional limitations in IADL might serve as a more sensitive indicator of cognitive decline even after adjusting for depressive symptoms.
This ambiguity necessitates further investigation into the factors truly contributing to SCD. Therefore, this study aims to examine the complexities of the interplay between objective and subjective cognitive function while concurrently differentiating the effects of IADL and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDepS). Our hypotheses include: 1) CDR-SB is associated with Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCDQ), 2) depressive symptoms mediate the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q, 3) IADL mediates the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q, and 4) depressive symptoms have a sequential mediating effect on IADL and SCD-Q.


Study design and sample

For this descriptive cross-sectional study, community-dwelling older adults without dementia were recruited between September 2020 and April 2021. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) individuals aged 65 to 79 years, and 2) normal performance on cognitive tests and activities of daily living. Individuals were excluded if they 1) were illiterate, 2) had severe hearing or visual impairments, 3) had a history of being diagnosed with dementia or major neuropsychiatric disorders (i.e., schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, Parkinsonism, epilepsy, stroke, and head trauma), 4) had abnormal clinical findings due to cerebral hemorrhage, 5) had severe physical diseases, 6) had substance use disorders, or 7) had contraindications for an magnetic resonance imaging (i.e., claustrophobia or nonremovable ferromagnetic implants). To screen out individuals with undiagnosed dementia, or MCI, we used the criteria developed by the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer’s Association [24] and the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-Core (SNSB-C) [25]. Among the 165 individuals initially enrolled, 25 were excluded due to MCI as determined by the SNSB-C, and one participant withdrew after giving informed consent. Consequently, a total of 139 participants were included in the statistical analysis. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yongin Severance Hospital (9-2020-0080), and all participants provided informed consent.



Rami et al. [26] developed and validated the SCD-Q to quantify SCD, wherein individuals self-assess perceived declines in their cognitive function over the past two years. The present study utilized the Korean version of the SCD-Q [27], comprising 24 items. Scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores denoting more significant cognitive decline. A cutoff point of 7 has been established [27]. SCD-Q demonstrated adequate internal reliability in this study (Cronbach’s α=0.87), consistent with previous findings of strong reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.90). Furthermore, its convergent validity coefficient exhibited notable significance (r=0.56; p<0.001) [26].


The CDR-SB is an expanded version of the CDR, providing separate assessments for cognitive and functional performance across six domains: memory, orientation, judgment and problem-solving, community affairs, hobbies, and personal care [17]. In contrast to the CDR’s global score, the CDR-SB covers a broader range of domains and demonstrates increased sensitivity in detecting the progression of AD from early to advanced stages [19]. Prior research reported a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65 [17], while the present sample yielded a slightly lower alpha of 0.60.


The scale measures depressive symptoms in older adults. It consists of 30 dichotomous questions, with the total score indicating the level of depression: a score of 0-9 is considered normal, 10-19 suggests mild depression, and 20-30 indicates moderate to severe depression [28]. Consistent with previous findings of strong reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.90) [28], this study demonstrated high internal reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.90).


This self-report test assesses instrumental tasks that necessitate psychosocial functioning and cognitive domains of executive functions, such as planning, organization, and problem-solving. These tasks encompass managing finances, shopping, using the telephone, and administering medications. Scores range from 0 to 45, with higher scores indicating greater difficulty for the individual in independently performing IADL [29,30]. While prior research suggests strong internal reliability (Cronbach’s α>0.90) [31], this study found a lower value (Cronbach’s α=0.42). The low reliability of the scale might be caused by a cluster of responses in one category. The present sample demographics may not be adequately diverse, resulting in a skewed distribution of responses towards a particular category.

Statistical analysis

For each variable considered, we initially calculated descriptive statistics. Continuous data are presented as the mean and standard deviation, whereas categorical data are presented as counts (percentages). Subsequently, we explored the association between the continuous variables using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Finally, we conducted a structural equation model path analysis with SPSS Amos 23 (IBR Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) to test various hypotheses concerning the relationships among CDR-SB, GDepS, IADL, and their impact on SCD-Q.
A bootstrapping procedure was employed to estimate indirect effects and to conduct significance testing in mediation analysis [32]. To evaluate the fit of the structural model, various goodness-of-fit indices were used, as the sample size can affect the results and interpretation of these indices. The chi-square test is one such index, assessing the discrepancy between the observed and expected data. Ideally, a nonsignificant chi-square result indicates a “good” fit. However, it is crucial to recognize that reliance on the chi-square test alone can be deceptive, given its sensitivity to sample size. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is another commonly utilized indicator of model fit. The RMSEA considers both the complexity of the model and the sample size, offering a measure of the model’s congruence with the data. An RMSEA value of 0.05 or lower indicates a better fit between the proposed model and the observed data [33].


Characteristics of the participants

Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the 139 participants. The majority were female (n=98, 70.5%), with an average age of 73.46±3.82 years (ranging from 65 to 79 years). The average length of education was 10.05±4.47 years.
The variable “cardiovascular risk factors” indicated how many of the following conditions were in the participants’ medical histories: hypertension (n=65, 46.8%), diabetes (n=34, 24.5%), dyslipidemia (n=47, 33.8%), and cardiovascular events (n=13, 9.4%). In our sample, most participants had at least one cardiovascular risk factor (n=99, 71.2%). Regarding other health-related risk factors, 31 individuals (22.3%) reported drinking alcohol, and 7 (5.0%) reported smoking cigarettes.

The associations between risk factors and neuropsychological tests

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the associations among the measured variables, and the results are shown in Table 2. SCD-Q displayed significant positive correlations with the scores of GDepS (r=0.482, p<0.001), IADL (r=0.409, p<0.001), and CDR-SB (r=0.185, p<0.05). The correlation coefficients between TMT-B, SVLT, BNT, COWAT, and SCD-Q were found to be nonsignificant, indicating that only CDR-SB showed a statistically significant association with SCD-Q.

Path analysis and mediation analysis

To evaluate the fit of the hypothesized model, the chi-square test, RMSEA, comparative fit index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were used. The model fit was acceptable (minimum discrepancy function by degrees of freedom divided [CMIN/DF]=1.585, RMSEA=0.065, CFI=0.955, TLI=0.939). The maximum likelihood missing value estimation method was used to process missing values in the path analysis (Figure 1, which illustrates the mediation model).


While there is a weak positive relationship with a correlation of 0.185 between SCD-Q and CDR-SB, no significant direct effect of the CDR-SB was found (excluding the mediator of depressive symptoms). Higher CDR-SB scores indicate a greater severity of cognitive and functional impairment. CDR-SB did not have a significant direct effect on SCD-Q in the mediation analysis conducted, unless considering depressive symptoms as a mediator.

Mediating effect of GDepS

A significant association was observed between the CDR-SB, GDepS, and SCD-Q. However, there was no significant direct association between SCD-Q and CDR-SB. Despite the absence of a significant direct association between CDR-SB and SCD-Q, GDepS mediated the relationship between these two measures. Higher CDR-SB scores, which were associated with more symptoms of depression, corresponded to higher SCD-Q scores.

Mediating effect of IADL

There was no direct or indirect association between CDR-SB, IADL, and SCD-Q. IADL did not mediate the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q.


Results summary

This study investigated the relationship between SCD-Q, IADL, and CDR-SB in community-dwelling older adults with objectively normal cognitive function. The findings revealed that the SCD-Q was indirectly related to the CDR-SB, with the GDepS acting as a mediator in this relationship. However, no direct link was found between the SCD-Q and the CDRSB, suggesting that depression may influence how individuals perceive their cognitive decline, rather than directly causing it. This finding is consistent with previous studies suggesting that depressive symptoms could serve as an early indicator of cognitive decline, especially in relation to memory impairment [14,34-37].
The findings from this study highlight the importance of conducting a comprehensive assessment of SCD in conjunction with CDR-SB and the GDepS. Early intervention during the cognitive impairment stage may be more effective when modifiable risk factors are identified and managed promptly [38]. These findings emphasize the necessity for patient-centered care, particularly in addressing symptoms of depression [14]. Recognizing the clinical characteristics of individuals with SCD who also experience worries could help explain the increased risk of AD development in this group [39]. Therefore, considering psychiatric factors is crucial when assessing reported complaints of memory decline.
In contrast, the analysis showed no significant association between IADL and SCD-Q, indicating that IADL does not serve as a mediator in the relationship between CDR-SB and SCD-Q. This finding is consistent with research showing most individuals with SCD maintain intact IADL abilities [12].
Although both IADL and CDR-SB assess functional abilities, they differ in scope. CDR-SB is a more comprehensive measure of cognitive and functional abilities, including memory and personal care, whereas IADL specifically measures complex activities of daily life like managing finances and transportation [40,41]. This differentiation could explain the observed discrepancy in their connection to SCD-Q [27,42,43].
These findings suggest the need for diverse assessments beyond IADL, potentially involving broader aspects of daily functioning and real-life participation, for tailored support in managing cognitive decline. 44 Further research is needed to understand how specific functional limitations relate to different facets of SCD [27,42,43].
Despite the average participant age of 73, the study found no significant influence of age on SCD. SCD can occur at any age, with a prevalence of 10.4% in the 45-54 age group and 14.3% in individuals 75 years and older, as reported in Rami’s study using the SCD-Q [26,45,46]. Future research could focus on comparing the 45-54 age group with older individuals to further explore the association between SCD and aging.
The potential limitations of this study are as follows: first, this cross-sectional design limits conclusions about causality, and replication with longitudinal data is recommended confirm these findings over time. Second, caution must be exercised when interpreting the results, as the small sample size can impact the precision of point estimates. Finally, while the original SCD-Q comprised two components—the subject’s own perception and their caregiver’s perception—only the subject’s perception was utilized in this research. Although prior study suggests self-reported SCD is more sensitive than informant-reported SCD in predicting actual performance [47], excluding caregiver input might limit the comprehensiveness of the assessment.
Despite these limitations, our findings are based on a specific demographic subset of community-dwelling older adults between the ages of 55 and 79 with normal cognitive function. This homogenous population ensures relevance to the research question and minimizes potential confounding factors associated with age and pre-existing cognitive impairment [19]. The identification of depression as an early marker of SCD offers a potentially modifiable target for intervention, paving the way for tailored strategies to support individuals in the preclinical stages.


Due to the fact that SCD can progress and affect different people differently, there is no one test that can determine a proper diagnosis. Therefore, identifying potential early markers of SCD through depressive symptoms and functional limitations can help tailor interventions to meet the unique needs of community-dwelling older adults and further optimize outcomes. Consequently, comprehensive assessments beyond the SCD-Q should be considered to detect subtle signs, exclude other potential causes, and identify patients who could benefit from additional testing [48].


Availability of Data and Material

The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are not publicly available due to privacy concerns but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Areum Kim, Sarah Soyeon Oh, Sang Hui Chu. Data curation: Sarah Soyeon Oh, Sang Hui Chu, Areum Kim. Formal analysis: Areum Kim. Funding acquisition: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi. Methodology: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Areum Kim. Project administration: Woo Jung Kim, Eun Lee. Supervision: Woo Jung Kim, Eun Lee. Validation: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Areum Kim. Visualization: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Areum Kim. Writing—original draft: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Sarah Soyeon Oh, Areum Kim. Writing—review & editing: Woo Jung Kim, JiYeon Choi, Areum Kim.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by a faculty research grant from Yonsei University College of Medicine (6-2021-0088) and National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2020R1A6A1A03041989) and Basic Science Research Program through the NRF funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1I1A1A01040374).



Figure 1.
Diagram of the mediation model, showing the mediating role of depression and IADL on the relationship between CDRSB and SCD-Q, along with standardized regression weightst between CDR-SB and GDepS (β=0.139, p<0.01); GDepS and SCD-Q (β=8.668, p<0.001). **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; GDepS, Geriatric Depression Scale; SCD-Q, Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants (N=139)
Variables Value
Age (yr) 73.46±3.82
 Male 41 (29.5)
 Female 98 (70.5)
Education (yr) 10.05±4.47
BMI (kg/m2) 25.32±2.93
Cardiovascular risk factors 1.19±0.98
 0 40 (28.8)
 1 46 (33.1)
 2 38 (27.3)
 ≥3 15 (10.8)
 Yes 31 (22.3)
 Yes 7 (5.0)
SCD-Q 8.590±5.250
TMT-B* -0.023±1.415
SVLT* 0.0381±1.200
BNT* 0.220±1.001
COWAT* -0.004±0.951
CDR-SB 0.306±0.516
IADL 0.220±0.660
GDepS 10.810±6.870

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

The independent t-test was used for continuous variables, and the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables.

* neuropsychological tests are presented as Z-scores. Cardiovascular risk factors represent the number of the following conditions in an individual’s medical history: hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular events.

BMI, body mass index; SCD-Q, Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire; TMT-B, Korean Trail Making Test for the elderly; SVLT, Seoul Verbal Learning Test; BNT, Boston Naming Test; COWAT, Controlled Oral Word Association Test; CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; GDepS, Geriatric Depression Scale

Table 2.
Associations between SCD-Q, neuropsychological tests, and related demographic factors (N=139)
Age Education BMI Cardiovascular risk factors TMT-B SVLT BNT COWAT CDR-SB IADL GDepS SCD-Q
Age 1
Education 0.045 1
BMI 0.074 -0.034 1
Cardiovascular risk factors 0.043 -0.077 0.156 1
TMT-B -0.137 0.095 -0.023 0.152 1
SVLT 0.055 -0.044 0.099 0.056 0.113 1
BNT 0.107 0.213* 0.081 -0.033 0.043 0.035 1
COWAT 0.071 0.094 0.082 0.046 0.063 0.230** 0.189* 1
CDR-SB 0.035 -0.121 -0.062 -0.051 -0.154 -0.319** -0.118 -0.055 1
IADL -0.014 -0.058 -0.039 0.022 -0.005 -0.077 -0.012 0.071 0.264** 1
GDepS 0.011 -0.265** 0.002 0.024 -0.006 -0.101 -0.117 -0.096 0.265** 0.144 1
SCD-Q -0.034 -0.161 -0.087 -0.025 0.025 -0.136 -0.162 -0.154 0.185* 0.409** 0.482** 1

Cardiovascular risk factors refers to the number of cardiovascular conditions in the individuals’ medical histories (i.e., hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and cardiovascular events).

* the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed);

** the correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

SCD-Q, Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire; BMI, body mass index; TMT-B, Korean Trail Making Test for the elderly; SVLT, Seoul Verbal Learning Test; BNT, Boston Naming Test; COWAT, Controlled Oral Word Association Test; CDR-SB, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes; IADL, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; GDepS, Geriatric Depression Scale


1. Taylor CA, Bouldin ED, Greenlund KJ, McGuire LC. Comorbid chronic conditions among older adults with subjective cognitive decline, United States, 2015-2017. Innov Aging 2020;4:igz045
crossref pmid pmc pdf
2. Roheger M, Hennersdorf XS, Riemann S, Flöel A, Meinzer M. A systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for subjective cognitive decline. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2021;7:e12180
crossref pmid pmc pdf
3. Tort-Merino A, Olives J, León M, Peñaloza C, Valech N, Santos-Santos MA, et al. Tau protein is associated with longitudinal memory decline in cognitively healthy subjects with normal Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarker levels. J Alzheimers Dis 2019;70:211-225.
crossref pmid
4. van Maurik IS, Slot RER, Verfaillie SCJ, Zwan MD, Bouwman FH, Prins ND, et al. Personalized risk for clinical progression in cognitively normal subjects-the ABIDE project. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019;11:33
pmid pmc
5. Wolfsgruber S, Molinuevo JL, Wagner M, Teunissen CE, Rami L, Coll-Padrós N, et al. Prevalence of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers in patients with subjective cognitive decline: cross-sectional comparison of three European memory clinic samples. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019;11:8
crossref pmid pmc pdf
6. Pike KE, Cavuoto MG, Li L, Wright BJ, Kinsella GJ. Subjective cognitive decline: level of risk for future dementia and mild cognitive impairment, a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Neuropsychol Rev 2022;32:703-735.
crossref pmid pdf
7. Reisberg B, Torossian C, Shulman MB, Monteiro I, Boksay I, Golomb J, et al. Two year outcomes, cognitive and behavioral markers of decline in healthy, cognitively normal older persons with global deterioration scale stage 2 (subjective cognitive decline with impairment). J Alzheimers Dis 2019;67:685-705.
crossref pmid
8. Cheng YW, Chen TF, Chiu MJ. From mild cognitive impairment to subjective cognitive decline: conceptual and methodological evolution. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2017;13:491-498.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
9. Jessen F, Amariglio RE, van Boxtel M, Breteler M, Ceccaldi M, Chételat G, et al. A conceptual framework for research on subjective cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2014;10:844-852.
10. Ávila-Villanueva M, Fernández-Blázquez MA. Subjective cognitive decline as a preclinical marker for Alzheimer’s disease: the challenge of stability over time. Front Aging Neurosci 2017;9:377
pmid pmc
11. van Harten AC, Mielke MM, Swenson-Dravis DM, Hagen CE, Edwards KK, Roberts RO, et al. Subjective cognitive decline and risk of MCI: the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Neurology 2018;91:e300-e312.
pmid pmc
12. Roehr S, Riedel-Heller SG, Kaduszkiewicz H, Wagner M, Fuchs A, van der Leeden C, et al. Is function in instrumental activities of daily living a useful feature in predicting Alzheimer’s disease dementia in subjective cognitive decline? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2019;34:193-203.
13. Brigola AG, Manzini CSS, Oliveira GBS, Ottaviani AC, Sako MP, Vale FAC. Subjective memory complaints associated with depression and cognitive impairment in the elderly: a systematic review. Dement Neuropsychol 2015;9:51-57.
crossref pmid pmc
14. Zlatar ZZ, Moore RC, Palmer BW, Thompson WK, Jeste DV. Cognitive complaints correlate with depression rather than concurrent objective cognitive impairment in the successful aging evaluation baseline sample. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2014;27:181-187.
crossref pmid pmc pdf
15. Smith L, Shin JI, Song TJ, Underwood BR, Jacob L, López Sánchez GF, et al. Association between depression and subjective cognitive complaints in 47 low- and middle-income countries. J Psychiatr Res 2022;154:28-34.
crossref pmid
16. Tzeng RC, Yang YW, Hsu KC, Chang HT, Chiu PY. Sum of boxes of the clinical dementia rating scale highly predicts conversion or reversion in predementia stages. Front Aging Neurosci 2022;14:1021792
crossref pmid pmc
17. McDougall F, Edgar C, Mertes M, Delmar P, Fontoura P, Abi-Saab D, et al. Psychometric properties of the clinical dementia rating - sum of boxes and other cognitive and functional outcomes in a prodromal Alzheimer’s disease population. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2021;8:151-160.
crossref pmid
18. Yang YW, Hsu KC, Wei CY, Tzeng RC, Chiu PY. Operational determination of subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia using sum of boxes of the clinical dementia rating scale. Front Aging Neurosci 2021;13:705782
crossref pmid pmc
19. Cedarbaum JM, Jaros M, Hernandez C, Coley N, Andrieu S, Grundman M, et al. Rationale for use of the clinical dementia rating sum of boxes as a primary outcome measure for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement 2013;9(1 Suppl):S45-S55.
crossref pmid pdf
20. Hohman TJ, Beason-Held LL, Resnick SM. Cognitive complaints, depressive symptoms, and cognitive impairment: are they related? J Am Geriatr Soc 2011;59:1908-1912.
crossref pmid pmc
21. Gayman MD, Turner RJ, Cui M. Physical limitations and depressive symptoms: exploring the nature of the association. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2008;63:S219-S228.
crossref pmid
22. Nadkarni NK, Levy-Cooperman N, Black SE. Functional correlates of instrumental activities of daily living in mild Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2012;33:53-60.
crossref pmid
23. Lee CD, Foster ER. Subjective memory complaints predict decline in memory, instrumental activities of daily living, and social participation in older adults: a fixed-effects model. Am J Occup Ther 2023;77:7704205100
crossref pmid pmc pdf
24. Guo LH, Alexopoulos P, Eisele T, Wagenpfeil S, Kurz A, Perneczky R. The National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association research criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: predicting the outcome. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2013;263:325-333.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Jahng S, Na DL, Kang Y. Constructing a composite score for the Seoul neuropsychological screening battery-core. Dement Neurocogn Disord 2015;14:137-142.
26. Rami L, Mollica MA, García-Sanchez C, Saldaña J, Sanchez B, Sala I, et al. The subjective cognitive decline questionnaire (SCD-Q): a validation study. J Alzheimers Dis 2014;41:453-466.
crossref pmid
27. Kim BH. [Cognitive profiles of “subjective cognitive decline” and clinical implications of its subgroups based on memory strategy types] [dissertation]. Chuncheon, Hallym University. 2015;Korean.

28. Kim JY, Park JH, Lee JJ, Huh Y, Lee SB, Han SK, et al. Standardization of the Korean version of the geriatric depression scale: reliability, validity, and factor structure. Psychiatry Investig 2008;5:232-238.
crossref pmid pmc
29. Hall JR, Vo HT, Johnson LA, Barber RC, O’Bryant SE. The link between cognitive measures and ADLs and IADL functioning in mild Alzheimer’s: what has gender got to do with it? Int J Alzheimers Dis 2011;2011:276734
crossref pmid pmc pdf
30. Martyr A, Clare L. Executive function and activities of daily living in Alzheimer’s disease: a correlational meta-analysis. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2012;33:189-203.
crossref pmid pdf
31. Won CW, Rho YG, SunWoo D, Lee YS. [The validity and reliability of Korean instrumental activities of daily living (K-IADL) scale]. J Korean Geriatr Soc 2002;6:273-280. Korean.

32. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 2008;40:879-891.
crossref pmid pdf
33. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 1998.

34. Akinci M, Sánchez-Benavides G, Brugulat-Serrat A, Peña-Gómez C, Palpatzis E, Shekari M, et al. Subjective cognitive decline and anxious/depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: what is the role of stress perception, stress resilience, and β-amyloid? Alzheimers Res Ther 2022;14:126
crossref pmid pmc pdf
35. Köhler S, van Boxtel MP, van Os J, Thomas AJ, O’Brien JT, Jolles J, et al. Depressive symptoms and cognitive decline in community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2010;58:873-879.
crossref pmid
36. Svendsen AM, Kessing LV, Munkholm K, Vinberg M, Miskowiak KW. Is there an association between subjective and objective measures of cognitive function in patients with affective disorders? Nord J Psychiatry 2012;66:248-253.
crossref pmid
37. Zeintl M, Kliegel M, Rast P, Zimprich D. Prospective memory complaints can be predicted by prospective memory performance in older adults. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006;22:209-215.
crossref pmid pdf
38. Edmonds EC, Delano-Wood L, Galasko DR, Salmon DP, Bondi MW; Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Subjective cognitive complaints contribute to misdiagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2014;20:836-847.
crossref pmid pmc
39. Chen G, Yang K, Du W, Hu X, Han Y. Clinical characteristics in subjective cognitive decline with and without worry: baseline investigation of the SILCODE study. J Alzheimers Dis 2019;72:443-454.
crossref pmid
40. Coley N, Andrieu S, Jaros M, Weiner M, Cedarbaum J, Vellas B. Suitability of the clinical dementia rating-sum of boxes as a single primary endpoint for Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:602-610.e2.
crossref pmid pdf
41. Cedarbaum JM, Crans G, Grundman M. Seeing with new eyes: finding a path to early intervention trials in Alzheimer’s disease. J Nutr Health Aging 2010;14:306-309.
crossref pmid pdf
42. Jefferson AL, Paul RH, Ozonoff A, Cohen RA. Evaluating elements of executive functioning as predictors of instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006;21:311-320.
crossref pmid
43. Lenze EJ, Rogers JC, Martire LM, Mulsant BH, Rollman BL, Dew MA, et al. The association of late-life depression and anxiety with physical disability: a review of the literature and prospectus for future research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001;9:113-135.
crossref pmid
44. Chui A, Boccone G, Rico P, Ngo V, Zhang A, Colquhoun H, et al. Everyday functioning among older adults with subjective cognitive decline: a scoping review. Disabil Rehabil 2024;Feb 10 [Epub].
45. Moret-Tatay C, Zharova I, Iborra-Marmolejo I, Bernabé-Valero G, Jorques-Infante MJ, Beneyto-Arrojo MJ. Psychometric properties of the subjective cognitive decline questionnaire (SCD-Q) and its invariance across age groups. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20:1220
crossref pmid pmc
46. Taylor CA, Bouldin ED, McGuire LC. Subjective cognitive decline among adults aged ≥45 years - United States, 2015-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2018;67:753-757.
crossref pmid pmc
47. Nakhla MZ, Cohen L, Salmon DP, Smirnov DS, Marquine MJ, Moore AA, et al. Self-reported subjective cognitive decline is associated with global cognition in a community sample of Latinos/as/x living in the United States. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2021;43:663-676.
crossref pmc
48. Petrazzuoli F, Vestberg S, Midlöv P, Thulesius H, Stomrud E, Palmqvist S. Brief cognitive tests used in primary care cannot accurately differentiate mild cognitive impairment from subjective cognitive decline. J Alzheimers Dis 2020;75:1191-1201.
crossref pmid pmc
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 494 View
  • 51 Download


Browse all articles >

Editorial Office
#522, 27, Seochojungang-ro 24-gil, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06601, Korea
Tel: +82-2-717-0892    E-mail:                

Copyright © 2024 by Korean Neuropsychiatric Association.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next