OBJECTIVE: Apathy is highly prevalent among neuropsychiatric populations and is associated with greater morbidity and worse functional outcomes. Despite this, it remains understudied and poorly understood, primarily due to lack of consensus definition and clear diagnostic criteria for apathy. Without a gold standard for defining and measuring apathy, the availability of empirically sound measures is imperative. This paper provides a psychometric review of the most commonly used apathy measures and provides recommendations for use and further research. METHODS: Pertinent literature databases were searched to identify all available assessment tools for apathy in adults aged 18 and older. Evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales were examined. Alternate variations of scales (e.g., non-English versions) were also evaluated if the validating articles were written in English. RESULTS: Fifteen apathy scales or subscales were examined. The most psychometrically robust measures for assessing apathy across any disease population appear to be the Apathy Evaluation Scale and the apathy subscale of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory based on the criteria set in this review. For assessment in specific populations, the Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating for patients with Alzheimer's dementia, the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale for schizophrenia populations, and the Frontal System Behavior Scale for patients with frontotemporal deficits are reliable and valid measures. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers have numerous apathy scales for use in broad and disease-specific neuropsychiatric populations. Our understanding of apathy would be advanced by research that helps build a consensus as to the definition and diagnosis of apathy and further refine the psychometric properties of all apathy assessment tools. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVE: Apathy is highly prevalent among neuropsychiatric populations and is associated with greater morbidity and worse functional outcomes. Despite this, it remains understudied and poorly understood, primarily due to lack of consensus definition and clear diagnostic criteria for apathy. Without a gold standard for defining and measuring apathy, the availability of empirically sound measures is imperative. This paper provides a psychometric review of the most commonly used apathy measures and provides recommendations for use and further research. METHODS: Pertinent literature databases were searched to identify all available assessment tools for apathy in adults aged 18 and older. Evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales were examined. Alternate variations of scales (e.g., non-English versions) were also evaluated if the validating articles were written in English. RESULTS: Fifteen apathy scales or subscales were examined. The most psychometrically robust measures for assessing apathy across any disease population appear to be the Apathy Evaluation Scale and the apathy subscale of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory based on the criteria set in this review. For assessment in specific populations, the Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating for patients with Alzheimer's dementia, the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale for schizophrenia populations, and the Frontal System Behavior Scale for patients with frontotemporal deficits are reliable and valid measures. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers have numerous apathy scales for use in broad and disease-specific neuropsychiatric populations. Our understanding of apathy would be advanced by research that helps build a consensus as to the definition and diagnosis of apathy and further refine the psychometric properties of all apathy assessment tools. Copyright Â
Authors: J Alexander Bodkin; Samuel G Siris; Paul C Bermanzohn; John Hennen; Jonathan O Cole Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Antonios M Politis; Stephen Vozzella; Lawrence S Mayer; Chiadi U Onyike; Alva S Baker; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Deborah A Cahn-Weiner; Janet Grace; Brian R Ott; Hubert H Fernandez; Joseph H Friedman Journal: Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol Date: 2002-06
Authors: Antonis M Politis; Lawrence S Mayer; Maria Passa; Antonis Maillis; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Miriam E Shapiro; Jeannette R Mahoney; Deena Peyser; Barry S Zingman; Joe Verghese Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Amanda K Lamarre; Katya Rascovsky; Alan Bostrom; Parnian Toofanian; Sarah Wilkins; Sharon J Sha; David C Perry; Zachary A Miller; Georges Naasan; Robert Laforce; Jayne Hagen; Leonel T Takada; Maria Carmela Tartaglia; Gail Kang; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Sarah Tomaszewski Farias; Berneet Kaur; John M Olichney; Lovingly Quitania Park; Mario F Mendez; Po-Heng Tsai; Edmond Teng; Bradford Clark Dickerson; Kimiko Domoto-Reilly; Scott McGinnis; Bruce L Miller; Joel H Kramer Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Jan Willem van Dalen; Lennard L van Wanrooij; Eric P Moll van Charante; Carol Brayne; Willem A van Gool; Edo Richard Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Miriam E Shapiro; Jeannette R Mahoney; Barry S Zingman; David L Pogge; Joe Verghese Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Elles Douven; Sebastian Köhler; Syenna H J Schievink; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Julie Staals; Frans R J Verhey; Pauline Aalten Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 2.762