What is in the news today? How media-related affect shapes adolescents' stance towards the EU.

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is regarded as a formative period for political development. One important developmental context is media. Negatively perceived political media content can foster populistic attitudes, which in turn decreases support of political institutions, such as the European Union (EU). As media valence effects are short-lived, this study examined intra-individual associations of media valence with European identity commitment and affect towards the EU, as well as indirect effects via populistic attitudes across 10 days. METHODS: We implemented a 10-day daily diary study with 371 adolescents from Germany (January to February 2022). Adolescents were on average 14.24 years old (SD = 0.55) and 60.4% were female. We estimated the hypothesized associations using multilevel structural equation models and dynamic structural equation models. RESULTS: We found significant associations between populistic attitudes and negative affect towards the EU on the same day and the next day. The lagged effect became nonsignificant, when including both same day and lagged effects into one model. Populistic attitudes were not significantly associated with European identity commitment within days or across days. Negative media content was associated with higher populistic attitudes on the same day and indirectly associated with negative affect towards the EU (b = -.01, 95% credible interval [-0.010, -0.004]). CONCLUSION: Negatively perceived political media content was associated with higher populistic attitudes and more negative affect towards the EU concurrently. Our results imply that media plays an important role for adolescents' development.

Informant-based assessment instruments for dementia in people with intellectual disability: A systematic review and standardised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Dementia in people with intellectual disability (ID) is frequent but hard to recognise. Evidence-based recommendations for suitable instruments are lacking. AIMS: The present study set out to evaluate informant-based dementia assessment instruments and to provide evidence-based recommendations for instruments most suitable in clinical practice and research. METHOD AND PROCEDURES: A systematic review was conducted across ten international electronic databases. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, including a risk of bias assessment, was applied to extract information and to evaluate measurement properties and the quality of available evidence. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: In total, 42 studies evaluating 18 informant-based assessment instruments were analysed. For screening purposes, we recommend the Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia in Down Syndrome Scale (BPSD-DS), the Cognitive Scale for Down Syndrome (CS-DS), and the Dementia Screening Questionnaire for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (DSQIID). For a more thorough dementia assessment, we recommend the Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders of Older People with Down's Syndrome and Others with Intellectual Disabilities (CAMDEX-DS). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our study informs clinicians and researchers about adequate, well-evaluated dementia assessment instruments for people with ID, and highlights the need for high quality studies, especially regarding content validity.

High test-retest reliability of the extended version of the "Sniffin' Sticks" test.

The "Sniffin' Sticks" test kit is a validated and commonly used tool for assessment of olfactory function in subjects with normal sense of smell and in individuals with smell loss. That test incorporates subtests for odor threshold, discrimination, and identification. To gain higher subtest reproducibility, tests on odor discrimination and odor identification were extended using 32 instead of the usually applied 16 single trials each. In developing the extended Sniffin' Sticks test, a number of preliminary experiments were performed in 46 healthy, normosmic individuals 1) to evaluate intensity and familiarity of the additionally selected odors, 2) to select distractors for the discrimination and identification test, and 3) to evaluate the test-retest reliability of each subtest. Furthermore, the extended test was applied to 126 patients with olfactory loss and 71 normosmic individuals. Follow-up investigation could be performed in 69 controls within an average interval of 4 days. Results revealed significant differences between patients and healthy subjects. Estimated intensity and familiarity of the newly selected 16 items of the discrimination test did not differ significantly from the 16 standard items. Test-retest reliability was found to be r = 0.80 (odor discrimination), r = 0.88 (odor identification), and r = 0.92 (odor threshold). In conclusion, the extended test kit allows a precise evaluation of olfactory function, especially when different olfactory tasks are assessed using individual subtests. Furthermore, the high test-retest reliability of both the 16 and the 32-item tests allows the evaluation of even relatively small changes of olfactory function over time by means of either test.