Loading…

Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study

The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, el...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2019, Vol.6 (4), p.237-241
Main Authors: Solomon, Todd M., Barbone, J. M., Feaster, H. T., Miller, D. S., deBros, G. B., Murphy, C. A., Michalczuk, D.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3
container_end_page 241
container_issue 4
container_start_page 237
container_title The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease
container_volume 6
creator Solomon, Todd M.
Barbone, J. M.
Feaster, H. T.
Miller, D. S.
deBros, G. B.
Murphy, C. A.
Michalczuk, D.
description The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, electronic versions of the ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) have been utilized in clinical trials and demonstrated significant reductions in frequency of rater error as compared to paper. In order to establish validity of the electronic version (eADAS-Cog), 20 subjects who had received a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) at a private US Memory Clinic completed a single-center, randomized, counterbalanced, prospective trial comparing a version of the eADAS-Cog to the standard paper scale. Interclass Correlation Coefficient on total scores and Kappa analysis on domain scores yielded high agreement (0.88–0.99). Effects of order and mode of administration on ADAS-Cog total scores did not demonstrate a significant main effect. Overall, this study establishes adequate concurrent validity between the ADAS-Cog and eADAS-Cog among an adult population with diagnosed AD.
doi_str_mv 10.14283/jpad.2019.27
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2312273665</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2312273665</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kb1OwzAUhS0kBFXpyIo8srTYTurEbFX5lZAYCl0tJ74BV_nDN0EqExsvwMLr8SQ4UKYrnfvp3KtzCDnmbMZjkUZnm9bYmWBczUSyR0YiFnLKhJSHZIK4YSxsuIxUekAOIy5TydR8RD6WTdUa7-on2j0DXXWmtsZbGga9LCHvfFO7nK7Bo2tqpE3xyy3Kt2dwFfjv9y-kFw7BYFARAbGCuqOr3JRAv98_6bJ5ql3nXoN5n-Egn9MFXZvSWdMFz3Czt9sjsl-YEmGym2PyeHX5sLyZ3t1f3y4Xd9M8ikQ3zUXBbcJlYaSyIs0kxMbGcayYSdk8zgYxlUoVBUCquM2zjPPYGJkkiWLzIhqT0z_f1jcvPWCnK4c5lKWpoelRi4gLkURSzgN6skP7rAKrW-8q47f6P7wAzP4AbIcAwetN0_s6vK8507-l6KEUPZSig-sPmayCUw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2312273665</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Solomon, Todd M. ; Barbone, J. M. ; Feaster, H. T. ; Miller, D. S. ; deBros, G. B. ; Murphy, C. A. ; Michalczuk, D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Todd M. ; Barbone, J. M. ; Feaster, H. T. ; Miller, D. S. ; deBros, G. B. ; Murphy, C. A. ; Michalczuk, D.</creatorcontrib><description>The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, electronic versions of the ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) have been utilized in clinical trials and demonstrated significant reductions in frequency of rater error as compared to paper. In order to establish validity of the electronic version (eADAS-Cog), 20 subjects who had received a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) at a private US Memory Clinic completed a single-center, randomized, counterbalanced, prospective trial comparing a version of the eADAS-Cog to the standard paper scale. Interclass Correlation Coefficient on total scores and Kappa analysis on domain scores yielded high agreement (0.88–0.99). Effects of order and mode of administration on ADAS-Cog total scores did not demonstrate a significant main effect. Overall, this study establishes adequate concurrent validity between the ADAS-Cog and eADAS-Cog among an adult population with diagnosed AD.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2426-0266</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.14283/jpad.2019.27</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31686095</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cham: Springer International Publishing</publisher><subject>Brief Reports ; Geriatrics/Gerontology ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Neurology</subject><ispartof>The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2019, Vol.6 (4), p.237-241</ispartof><rights>Serdi and Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31686095$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbone, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feaster, H. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, D. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>deBros, G. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, C. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michalczuk, D.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study</title><title>The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease</title><addtitle>J Prev Alzheimers Dis</addtitle><addtitle>J Prev Alzheimers Dis</addtitle><description>The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, electronic versions of the ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) have been utilized in clinical trials and demonstrated significant reductions in frequency of rater error as compared to paper. In order to establish validity of the electronic version (eADAS-Cog), 20 subjects who had received a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) at a private US Memory Clinic completed a single-center, randomized, counterbalanced, prospective trial comparing a version of the eADAS-Cog to the standard paper scale. Interclass Correlation Coefficient on total scores and Kappa analysis on domain scores yielded high agreement (0.88–0.99). Effects of order and mode of administration on ADAS-Cog total scores did not demonstrate a significant main effect. Overall, this study establishes adequate concurrent validity between the ADAS-Cog and eADAS-Cog among an adult population with diagnosed AD.</description><subject>Brief Reports</subject><subject>Geriatrics/Gerontology</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Neurology</subject><issn>2426-0266</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo1kb1OwzAUhS0kBFXpyIo8srTYTurEbFX5lZAYCl0tJ74BV_nDN0EqExsvwMLr8SQ4UKYrnfvp3KtzCDnmbMZjkUZnm9bYmWBczUSyR0YiFnLKhJSHZIK4YSxsuIxUekAOIy5TydR8RD6WTdUa7-on2j0DXXWmtsZbGga9LCHvfFO7nK7Bo2tqpE3xyy3Kt2dwFfjv9y-kFw7BYFARAbGCuqOr3JRAv98_6bJ5ql3nXoN5n-Egn9MFXZvSWdMFz3Czt9sjsl-YEmGym2PyeHX5sLyZ3t1f3y4Xd9M8ikQ3zUXBbcJlYaSyIs0kxMbGcayYSdk8zgYxlUoVBUCquM2zjPPYGJkkiWLzIhqT0z_f1jcvPWCnK4c5lKWpoelRi4gLkURSzgN6skP7rAKrW-8q47f6P7wAzP4AbIcAwetN0_s6vK8507-l6KEUPZSig-sPmayCUw</recordid><startdate>2019</startdate><enddate>2019</enddate><creator>Solomon, Todd M.</creator><creator>Barbone, J. M.</creator><creator>Feaster, H. T.</creator><creator>Miller, D. S.</creator><creator>deBros, G. B.</creator><creator>Murphy, C. A.</creator><creator>Michalczuk, D.</creator><general>Springer International Publishing</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2019</creationdate><title>Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study</title><author>Solomon, Todd M. ; Barbone, J. M. ; Feaster, H. T. ; Miller, D. S. ; deBros, G. B. ; Murphy, C. A. ; Michalczuk, D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Brief Reports</topic><topic>Geriatrics/Gerontology</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Neurology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Solomon, Todd M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barbone, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Feaster, H. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, D. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>deBros, G. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murphy, C. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michalczuk, D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Solomon, Todd M.</au><au>Barbone, J. M.</au><au>Feaster, H. T.</au><au>Miller, D. S.</au><au>deBros, G. B.</au><au>Murphy, C. A.</au><au>Michalczuk, D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study</atitle><jtitle>The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease</jtitle><stitle>J Prev Alzheimers Dis</stitle><addtitle>J Prev Alzheimers Dis</addtitle><date>2019</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>237</spage><epage>241</epage><pages>237-241</pages><eissn>2426-0266</eissn><abstract>The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, electronic versions of the ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) have been utilized in clinical trials and demonstrated significant reductions in frequency of rater error as compared to paper. In order to establish validity of the electronic version (eADAS-Cog), 20 subjects who had received a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) at a private US Memory Clinic completed a single-center, randomized, counterbalanced, prospective trial comparing a version of the eADAS-Cog to the standard paper scale. Interclass Correlation Coefficient on total scores and Kappa analysis on domain scores yielded high agreement (0.88–0.99). Effects of order and mode of administration on ADAS-Cog total scores did not demonstrate a significant main effect. Overall, this study establishes adequate concurrent validity between the ADAS-Cog and eADAS-Cog among an adult population with diagnosed AD.</abstract><cop>Cham</cop><pub>Springer International Publishing</pub><pmid>31686095</pmid><doi>10.14283/jpad.2019.27</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2426-0266
ispartof The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2019, Vol.6 (4), p.237-241
issn 2426-0266
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2312273665
source Springer Nature
subjects Brief Reports
Geriatrics/Gerontology
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Neurology
title Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T19%3A35%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20the%20Standard%20and%20Electronic%20Versions%20of%20the%20Alzheimer%E2%80%99s%20Disease%20Assessment%20Scale%20%E2%80%94%20Cognitive%20Subscale:%20A%20Validation%20Study&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20prevention%20of%20Alzheimer's%20disease&rft.au=Solomon,%20Todd%20M.&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=237&rft.epage=241&rft.pages=237-241&rft.eissn=2426-0266&rft_id=info:doi/10.14283/jpad.2019.27&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2312273665%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c332t-c2f1d716fa69d28b6e4ad44490a8054b9d288699ffee891dcbb114aa6777905f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2312273665&rft_id=info:pmid/31686095&rfr_iscdi=true