OBJECTIVE: The study reviewed all the published instruments used for the assessment, diagnosis, screening, and outcomes monitoring/evaluation of behavioral disturbances associated with dementia (BDAD) to recommend a set of psychometrically valid measures for clinicians and researchers to use, across a range of different practice settings. METHODS: The study involved a broad scoping search, followed by a series of in-depth literature reviews on 29 instruments using scientific literature databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) and various national, international government, and government agency websites and professional organization websites. External consultations from measurement, clinical and research experts in dementia care, consumer representatives, and policy/decision makers, were sought in selecting the best instruments and in making the final recommendations. FINDINGS: Key attributes and psychometric properties of a short list of five instruments were measured against prespecified criteria. The Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) and the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) were rated as the best measures for assessment of behavioral disturbances, followed by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease-Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia (CERAD-BRSD), the Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale, and the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale. CONCLUSION: The use of valid and standardized outcome measures for the assessment of BDAD is critical for epidemiological studies, prevention, early intervention and treatment of dementia conditions, and funding for relevant healthcare services. The review recommends the NPI and BEHAVE-AD as the most appropriate measures for both clinical and research, whereas the CERAD-BRSD is suited better for research. The review was designed for the Australian context; however, the findings are applicable in other developed countries.
OBJECTIVE: The study reviewed all the published instruments used for the assessment, diagnosis, screening, and outcomes monitoring/evaluation of behavioral disturbances associated with dementia (BDAD) to recommend a set of psychometrically valid measures for clinicians and researchers to use, across a range of different practice settings. METHODS: The study involved a broad scoping search, followed by a series of in-depth literature reviews on 29 instruments using scientific literature databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library) and various national, international government, and government agency websites and professional organization websites. External consultations from measurement, clinical and research experts in dementia care, consumer representatives, and policy/decision makers, were sought in selecting the best instruments and in making the final recommendations. FINDINGS: Key attributes and psychometric properties of a short list of five instruments were measured against prespecified criteria. The Neuropsychiatry Inventory (NPI) and the Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) were rated as the best measures for assessment of behavioral disturbances, followed by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease-Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia (CERAD-BRSD), the Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale, and the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale. CONCLUSION: The use of valid and standardized outcome measures for the assessment of BDAD is critical for epidemiological studies, prevention, early intervention and treatment of dementia conditions, and funding for relevant healthcare services. The review recommends the NPI and BEHAVE-AD as the most appropriate measures for both clinical and research, whereas the CERAD-BRSD is suited better for research. The review was designed for the Australian context; however, the findings are applicable in other developed countries.
Authors: Zahinoor Ismail; Chetachi A Emeremni; Patricia R Houck; Sati Mazumdar; Jules Rosen; Tarek K Rajji; Bruce G Pollock; Benoit H Mulsant Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-01-02 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Jenny T van der Steen; Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet; Johannes C van der Wouden; Manon S Bruinsma; Rob Jpm Scholten; Annemiek C Vink Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-05-02
Authors: Laura N Gitlin; Katherine A Marx; Ian H Stanley; Bryan R Hansen; Kimberly S Van Haitsma Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: R Wiest; Y Burren; M Hauf; G Schroth; J Pruessner; M Zbinden; K Cattapan-Ludewig; C Kiefer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P Reyes; M P Ortega-Merchan; A Rueda; F Uriza; Hernando Santamaria-García; N Rojas-Serrano; J Rodriguez-Santos; M C Velasco-Leon; J D Rodriguez-Parra; D E Mora-Diaz; D Matallana Journal: Behav Neurol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 3.342
Authors: Jenny T van der Steen; Hanneke Ja Smaling; Johannes C van der Wouden; Manon S Bruinsma; Rob Jpm Scholten; Annemiek C Vink Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-07-23