INTRODUCTION: Activities of daily living (ADL) are a major domain in the clinical assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. However, ADL scales have not been sufficiently validated in Spain. METHODS: Patients attending a neurology outpatient clinic were classified according to the global deterioration scale (GDS). Afterwards, an independent evaluator administers two scales of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL): Lawton and Brody's scale of IADL (SIADL) and Pfeffer's functional activities questionnaire (FAQ). The SIADL was scored in the original way (dichotomic) (SIADLd) and in an alternative way (ordinal) (SIADLo). Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), diagnostic validity (sensitivity, specificity, number of patients correctly classified) and influence of different variables (regression analysis) were analyzed for the SIADLd, the SIADLo and the FAQ. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were recruited. Internal consistency, reliability and diagnostic validity were good or excellent for the three scales. The SIADLo showed better diagnostic and scale features than the SIADLd, but the FAQ surpassed both in all the studied variables. No scale was able to make a proper distinction between patients with subjective complaints (GDS 2) and patients without complaints (GDS 1). Sex and age influenced the SIADL score, but not the FAQ score. The FAQ reached a sensitivity of 0.95 and a specificity of 0.88 in the screening of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The SIADL and the FAQ are useful, valid and reliable tools for the clinical assessment of AD patients. Ordinal scoring is more advantageous than dichotomic scoring in the SIADL, but the FAQ is preferable.
INTRODUCTION: Activities of daily living (ADL) are a major domain in the clinical assessment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. However, ADL scales have not been sufficiently validated in Spain. METHODS:Patients attending a neurology outpatient clinic were classified according to the global deterioration scale (GDS). Afterwards, an independent evaluator administers two scales of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL): Lawton and Brody's scale of IADL (SIADL) and Pfeffer's functional activities questionnaire (FAQ). The SIADL was scored in the original way (dichotomic) (SIADLd) and in an alternative way (ordinal) (SIADLo). Internal consistency (Cronbach alpha coefficient), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient), diagnostic validity (sensitivity, specificity, number of patients correctly classified) and influence of different variables (regression analysis) were analyzed for the SIADLd, the SIADLo and the FAQ. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were recruited. Internal consistency, reliability and diagnostic validity were good or excellent for the three scales. The SIADLo showed better diagnostic and scale features than the SIADLd, but the FAQ surpassed both in all the studied variables. No scale was able to make a proper distinction between patients with subjective complaints (GDS 2) and patients without complaints (GDS 1). Sex and age influenced the SIADL score, but not the FAQ score. The FAQ reached a sensitivity of 0.95 and a specificity of 0.88 in the screening of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: The SIADL and the FAQ are useful, valid and reliable tools for the clinical assessment of ADpatients. Ordinal scoring is more advantageous than dichotomic scoring in the SIADL, but the FAQ is preferable.
Authors: Brandon E Gavett; Vanessa Vudy; Mary Jeffrey; Samantha E John; Ashita S Gurnani; Jason W Adams Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2014-08-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Samantha E John; Ashita S Gurnani; Cara Bussell; Jessica L Saurman; Jason W Griffin; Brandon E Gavett Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Amarilis Acevedo; Kristin R Krueger; Ellen Navarro; Freddy Ortiz; Jennifer J Manly; Margarita M Padilla-Vélez; Sandra Weintraub; Oscar L López; Dan Mungas Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Sara Llamas-Velasco; Alberto Villarejo-Galende; Israel Contador; David Lora Pablos; Jesús Hernández-Gallego; Félix Bermejo-Pareja Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2016-10-08
Authors: Renate M van de Ven; Jaap M J Murre; Jessika I V Buitenweg; Dick J Veltman; Justine A Aaronson; Tanja C W Nijboer; Suzanne J C Kruiper-Doesborgh; Coen A M van Bennekom; K Richard Ridderinkhof; Ben Schmand Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: José I Recio-Rodríguez; Cristina Lugones-Sanchez; Cristina Agudo-Conde; Jesús González-Sánchez; Olaya Tamayo-Morales; Susana Gonzalez-Sanchez; Carmen Fernandez-Alonso; Jose A Maderuelo-Fernandez; Sara Mora-Simon; Manuel A Gómez-Marcos; Emiliano Rodriguez-Sanchez; Luis Garcia-Ortiz Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: George T Grossberg; Facundo Manes; Ricardo F Allegri; Luis Miguel Gutiérrez-Robledo; Sergio Gloger; Lei Xie; X Daniel Jia; Vojislav Pejović; Michael L Miller; James L Perhach; Stephen M Graham Journal: CNS Drugs Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 5.749
Authors: Jose Manuel Pérez-Mármol; M Carmen García-Ríos; Francisco J Barrero-Hernandez; Guadalupe Molina-Torres; Ted Brown; María Encarnación Aguilar-Ferrándiz Journal: Trials Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 2.279