4.7 Article

Validity and reliability of the AD8 informant interview in dementia

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 67, 期 11, 页码 1942-1948

出版社

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

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据