4.5 Review

Screening for dementia: a review of self- and informant-assessment instruments

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 20, Issue 3, Pages 431-458

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S104161020800673X

Keywords

dementia; mild cognitive impairment; screening; self assessment; informant

Funding

  1. NHMRC Program [179805]
  2. Alzheimer's Australia Research
  3. Centre for Mental Health Research at the Australian National University
  4. NHMRC Research Fellowship [366756]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The objective of this study was to review available dementia screening instruments that could be recommended for self-administration, particularly in electronic format. Owing to the gradual loss of insight associated with the progression of dementia, a broad definition of self-administration including self-administration by concerned informants (family, friends, caters) was used. Method: A systematic search of PubMed, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database was conducted. Only available full-text articles about dementia screening instruments written in English were included. Articles reporting on instruments used in a non-English context were excluded unless a validated English version of the instrument was available. Included instruments were assessed against the precise criteria and characteristics of the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE), the most widely used screening instrument. Results: The Concord Informant Dementia Scale (CIDS) and the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) were the only instruments meeting all selection criteria. The Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) also met the criteria, although it lacks validation for self-administration. No instrument has been validated for self-administration in electronic format. Conclusions: It is recommended that the MIS, the CIDS and the IQCODE be validated for self-administration in electronic format.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available