James E Galvin1, Catherine M Roe, Chengjie Xiong, John C Morris. 1. Departments of Neurology, Alzheimer Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 4488 Forest Park, Suite 130, St. Louis, MO 63108, USA. galvinj@neuro.wustl.edu
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: John E Morley; John C Morris; Marla Berg-Weger; Soo Borson; Brian D Carpenter; Natalia Del Campo; Bruno Dubois; Keith Fargo; L Jaime Fitten; Joseph H Flaherty; Mary Ganguli; George T Grossberg; Theodore K Malmstrom; Ronald D Petersen; Carroll Rodriguez; Andrew J Saykin; Philip Scheltens; Eric G Tangalos; Joe Verghese; Gordon Wilcock; Bengt Winblad; Jean Woo; Bruno Vellas Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: A Peters; A Döring; K-H Ladwig; C Meisinger; B Linkohr; C Autenrieth; S E Baumeister; J Behr; A Bergner; H Bickel; M Bidlingmaier; A Dias; R T Emeny; B Fischer; E Grill; L Gorzelniak; H Hänsch; S Heidbreder; M Heier; A Horsch; D Huber; R M Huber; R A Jörres; S Kääb; S Karrasch; I Kirchberger; G Klug; B Kranz; B Kuch; M E Lacruz; O Lang; A Mielck; D Nowak; S Perz; A Schneider; H Schulz; M Müller; H Seidl; R Strobl; B Thorand; R Wende; W Weidenhammer; A-K Zimmermann; H-E Wichmann; R Holle Journal: Z Gerontol Geriatr Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.281
Authors: Adam J Woods; Ronald Cohen; Michael Marsiske; Gene E Alexander; Sara J Czaja; Samuel Wu Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Andreea M Rawlings; A Richey Sharrett; Marilyn S Albert; Josef Coresh; B Gwen Windham; Melinda C Power; David S Knopman; Keenan Walker; Sheila Burgard; Thomas H Mosley; Rebecca F Gottesman; Elizabeth Selvin Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Elizabeth R Bassett; Grant M Fischer; Jonathan Shirshekan; James E Galvin; John C Morris Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: James E Galvin; Thomas M Meuser; Mary A Coats; Donald A Bakal; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2009 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703