Robert Fieo1, Jennifer J Manly1, Nicole Schupf2, Yaakov Stern3. 1. Cognitive Neuroscience Division, Department of Neurology and Taub Institute and. 2. The Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer's Disease and the Aging Brain, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. 3. Cognitive Neuroscience Division, Department of Neurology and Taub Institute and ys11@columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) exhibit strong predictive power for the presence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. However, IADLs are often less effective in younger cohorts or in healthy community-dwelling samples, presenting with large ceiling effects. This study aimed to construct an IADL scale with an extended range. An effort was made to incorporate leisure activity tasks that were more stimulating, and potentially more challenging, into a set of traditional IADLs. METHODS: Beginning with a set of IADL and leisure activity items, nonparametric item response theory methodology was used to construct a scale with appropriate dimensionality, monotonicity, item discrimination power, and scalability within a large cohort of young-old (aged 65-75). Dimensionality was further scrutinized by principal component analysis of the residuals. The predictive validity of the resulting scale for poor cognitive performance was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A reliable (ρ = .73) unidimensional construct was established, meeting the Mokken item response theory criteria of medium scalability. Excluding demented participants, the adjusted model proved sensitive to relatively subtle cognitive deficits; each additional task endorsed (nine-item scale) significantly decreased the odds of being in the bottom quarter of composite domains relating to processing speed (odds ratio = 0.73 [confidence interval: 0.56-0.97], p < .05) and visuospatial ability (odds ratio = 0.70 [confidence interval: 0.73-0.87], p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable extended-IADL scale was constructed meeting item response theory assumptions relating to unidimensionality, monotonicity, and invariant item ordering. The range of measurement extends well beyond traditional IADL scales. Finally, the scale appears to be sensitive to cognitive differences within the normal spectrum.
BACKGROUND: Instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) exhibit strong predictive power for the presence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. However, IADLs are often less effective in younger cohorts or in healthy community-dwelling samples, presenting with large ceiling effects. This study aimed to construct an IADL scale with an extended range. An effort was made to incorporate leisure activity tasks that were more stimulating, and potentially more challenging, into a set of traditional IADLs. METHODS: Beginning with a set of IADL and leisure activity items, nonparametric item response theory methodology was used to construct a scale with appropriate dimensionality, monotonicity, item discrimination power, and scalability within a large cohort of young-old (aged 65-75). Dimensionality was further scrutinized by principal component analysis of the residuals. The predictive validity of the resulting scale for poor cognitive performance was evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: A reliable (ρ = .73) unidimensional construct was established, meeting the Mokken item response theory criteria of medium scalability. Excluding demented participants, the adjusted model proved sensitive to relatively subtle cognitive deficits; each additional task endorsed (nine-item scale) significantly decreased the odds of being in the bottom quarter of composite domains relating to processing speed (odds ratio = 0.73 [confidence interval: 0.56-0.97], p < .05) and visuospatial ability (odds ratio = 0.70 [confidence interval: 0.73-0.87], p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable extended-IADL scale was constructed meeting item response theory assumptions relating to unidimensionality, monotonicity, and invariant item ordering. The range of measurement extends well beyond traditional IADL scales. Finally, the scale appears to be sensitive to cognitive differences within the normal spectrum.
Authors: Marja J Aartsen; Carolien H M Smits; Theo van Tilburg; Kees C P M Knipscheer; Dorly J H Deeg Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: R S Wilson; D A Bennett; J L Bienias; N T Aggarwal; C F Mendes De Leon; M C Morris; J A Schneider; D A Evans Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-12-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: S A M Sikkes; E S M de Lange-de Klerk; Y A L Pijnenburg; P Scheltens; B M J Uitdehaag Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Anna Kata; Meghan Dutt; Rebecca L Sudore; Emily Finlayson; Jeanette M Broering; Victoria L Tang Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Ted G Graber; Lisa Ferguson-Stegall; Haiming Liu; LaDora V Thompson Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-09-30 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Robert Fieo; Laura Zahodne; Ming X Tang; Jennifer J Manly; Ron Cohen; Yaakov Stern Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jeremy Reich; Mark G Thompson; Benjamin J Cowling; A Danielle Iuliano; Carolyn Greene; Yuyun Chen; Rachael Phadnis; Nancy H L Leung; Ying Song; Vicky J Fang; Cuiling Xu; Qigang Dai; Jun Zhang; Hongjun Zhang; Fiona Havers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-08-11 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Talia R Seider; Robert A Fieo; Andrew O'Shea; Eric C Porges; Adam J Woods; Ronald A Cohen Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.750