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...
Saved in:
Published in: | The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease 2019, Vol.6 (4), p.237-241 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |