OBJECTIVES: This study examined the construct validity of two cognitive scales from the federally mandated Minimum Data Set (MDS) of the nursing home Resident Assessment Instrument. DESIGN: A cross-sectional comparisons of the MDS measures, with scales provided by the resident, a proxy person, and nursing staff. SETTING: Subjects residing in 59 nursing homes (NHs) in Maryland from 1992 to 1995. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were 1939 new admissions to NHs, aged 65 and older, with complete MDS information at admission. MEASUREMENTS: Two MDS scales, the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) and the MDS Cognition Scale (MDS-COGS), were compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the staff rating on the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale (PGDRS) Orientation scale, as well as measures of functioning and functional decline. RESULTS: The CPS and the MDS-COGS were highly correlated (r = 0.92). Both correlated moderately well with the MMSE (r = -0.65 and -0.68) and with staff's rating on the PGDRS Orientation scale (r = 0.63 and r = 0.66). Correlations with the MMSE (r < 0.70) are lower than previously reported (r > or = 0.80). The proportion of cognitively impaired residents in this NH admission cohort was higher using the MDS-COGS than the CPS (65% vs 57%), but both MDS scales produced lower proportions than the MMSE (70%) and higher proportions than the PGDRS (47%). The internal consistency of the CPS was better without the comatose item (alpha = 0.80 vs 0.70). The MDS-COGS had higher internal consistency (alpha = 0.85) and was simpler to compute. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the validity of the MDS in a large sample of residents and NHs in situations where the MDS was not completed by research-trained staff. Compared with other instruments, the MDS-COGS and the CPS had moderate and similar validity for assessing cognitive impairment. Differences in the scales could provide different estimates of impairment among persons admitted to nursing homes.
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the construct validity of two cognitive scales from the federally mandated Minimum Data Set (MDS) of the nursing home Resident Assessment Instrument. DESIGN: A cross-sectional comparisons of the MDS measures, with scales provided by the resident, a proxy person, and nursing staff. SETTING: Subjects residing in 59 nursing homes (NHs) in Maryland from 1992 to 1995. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were 1939 new admissions to NHs, aged 65 and older, with complete MDS information at admission. MEASUREMENTS: Two MDS scales, the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) and the MDS Cognition Scale (MDS-COGS), were compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the staff rating on the Psychogeriatric Dependency Rating Scale (PGDRS) Orientation scale, as well as measures of functioning and functional decline. RESULTS: The CPS and the MDS-COGS were highly correlated (r = 0.92). Both correlated moderately well with the MMSE (r = -0.65 and -0.68) and with staff's rating on the PGDRS Orientation scale (r = 0.63 and r = 0.66). Correlations with the MMSE (r < 0.70) are lower than previously reported (r > or = 0.80). The proportion of cognitively impaired residents in this NH admission cohort was higher using the MDS-COGS than the CPS (65% vs 57%), but both MDS scales produced lower proportions than the MMSE (70%) and higher proportions than the PGDRS (47%). The internal consistency of the CPS was better without the comatose item (alpha = 0.80 vs 0.70). The MDS-COGS had higher internal consistency (alpha = 0.85) and was simpler to compute. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the validity of the MDS in a large sample of residents and NHs in situations where the MDS was not completed by research-trained staff. Compared with other instruments, the MDS-COGS and the CPS had moderate and similar validity for assessing cognitive impairment. Differences in the scales could provide different estimates of impairment among persons admitted to nursing homes.
Authors: Todd B Monroe; Sumathi K Misra; Ralf C Habermann; Mary S Dietrich; Ronald L Cowan; Sandra F Simmons Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Kali S Thomas; Eric Boyd; Angela B Mariotto; Dolly C Penn; Michael J Barrett; Joan L Warren Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Tingting Zhang; Yoojin Lee; Kevin W McConeghy; Lori A Daiello; Douglas P Kiel; Vincent Mor; Sarah D Berry Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Josephine P Gomes; Wassim H Shaheen; Son V Truong; Edward F Brown; Brent W Beasley; Byron J Gajewski Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kaycee M Sink; Joseph Thomas; Huiping Xu; Bruce Craig; Steven Kritchevsky; Laura P Sands Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael A Steinman; Andrew R Zullo; Yoojin Lee; Lori A Daiello; W John Boscardin; David D Dore; Siqi Gan; Kathy Fung; Sei J Lee; Kiya D R Komaiko; Vincent Mor Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Vishal Bali; Michael L Johnson; Hua Chen; Marc L Fleming; Holly M Holmes; Rajender R Aparasu Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.154