4.7 Article

Validity and reliability of the AD8 informant interview in dementia

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 67, Issue 11, Pages 1942-1948

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000247042.15547.eb

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To establish the validity, reliability, and discriminative properties of the AD8, a brief informant interview to detect dementia, in a clinic sample. Methods: We evaluated 255 patient-informant dyads. We compared the number of endorsed AD8 items with an independently derived Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and with performance on neuropsychological tests. Construct and concurrent validity, test-retest, interrater and intermodal reliability, and internal consistency of the AD8 were determined. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to assess the discriminative properties of the AD8. Results: Concurrent validity was strong with AD8 scores correlating with the CDR (r = 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88). Construct validity testing showed strong correlation between AD8 scores, CDR domains, and performance on neuropsychological tests. The Cronbach alpha of the AD8 was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.87), suggesting excellent internal consistency. The AD8 demonstrated good intrarater reliability and stability (weighted kappa = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.75). Both in-person and phone administration showed equal reliability (weighted kappa = 0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73). Interrater reliability was very good (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.92). The area under the curve was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.95), suggesting excellent discrimination between nondemented individuals and those with cognitive impairment regardless of etiology. Conclusion: The AD8 is a brief, sensitive measure that validly and reliably differentiates between nondemented and demented individuals. It can be used as a general screening device to detect cognitive change regardless of etiology and with different types of informants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available