The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare

The validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in primary healthcare has not been established. Therefore, the present study examined the validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in government subsidized primary healthcare centers in Singapore. Eligible patients (≥60 years old) were recruited...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International psychogeriatrics 2016-03, Vol.28 (3), p.443-452
Main Authors: Shaik, Muhammad Amin, Xu, Xin, Chan, Qun Lin, Hui, Richard Jor Yeong, Chong, Steven Shih Tsze, Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian, Dong, YanHong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cognition Disorders - diagnosis
Cognition Disorders - psychology
Cognitive ability
Dementia
Dementia - diagnosis
Female
Humans
Language
Logistic Models
Male
Mass Screening - methods
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests - standards
Neuropsychology
Older people
Primary care
Primary Health Care - organization & administration
Reproducibility of Results
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Singapore
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313
container_end_page 452
container_issue 3
container_start_page 443
container_title International psychogeriatrics
container_volume 28
creator Shaik, Muhammad Amin
Xu, Xin
Chan, Qun Lin
Hui, Richard Jor Yeong
Chong, Steven Shih Tsze
Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian
Dong, YanHong
description The validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in primary healthcare has not been established. Therefore, the present study examined the validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in government subsidized primary healthcare centers in Singapore. Eligible patients (≥60 years old) were recruited from primary healthcare centers and their informants received the AD8. Patient-informant dyads who agreed for further cognitive assessments received the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and a locally validated formal neuropsychological battery at a research center in a tertiary hospital. 1,082 informants completed AD8 assessment at two primary healthcare centers. Of these, 309 patients-informant dyads were further assessed, of whom 243 (78.6%) were CDR = 0; 22 (7.1%) were CDR = 0.5; and 44 (14.2%) were CDR≥1. The mean administration time of the informant AD8 was 2.3 ± 1.0 minutes. The informant AD8 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85); inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.85); and test-retest reliability (weighted κ = 0.80). Concurrent validity, as measured by the correlation between total AD8 scores and CDR global (R = 0.65, p < 0.001), CDR sum of boxes (R = 0.60, p < 0.001), MMSE (R = -0.39, p < 0.001), MoCA (R = -0.41, p < 0.001), as well as the formal neuropsychological battery (R = -0.46, p < 0.001), was good and consistent with previous studies. Construct validity, as measured by convergent validity (R ≥ 0.4) between individual items of AD8 with CDR and neuropsychological domains was acceptable. The informant AD8 demonstrated good concurrent and construct validity and is a reliable measure to detect cognitive dysfunction in primary healthcare.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S1041610215001702
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1837308253</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1041610215001702</cupid><sourcerecordid>1837308253</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtP3TAQha0KVCjtD2CDLLHpJsVjx48sEX1KSCxKJXbRJHa4Rkl8sX2p7rL_vI64VFVRxcoene-c0cwQcgzsAzDQZ9-B1aCAcZCs1Iy_Ioega6g4Ezd75V_katEPyJuU7hjjUkD9mhxwVZumaeCQ_LpeORrd6LHzo89birOlDzh6uxRhoLnofh5CnHDO9Pyjod2W9mFaY_QpzPSnzyuKNLnoXVoMfbidffYPjmJKLqXJFV8OYUwlh66jnzBu6crhmFc9RveW7A84Jvdu9x6RH58_XV98rS6vvny7OL-sesnrXHXIjeSqaYQYwHQDSKuYYVpZlFogK4oBtGB61E0NqNCauhk6q42UnQBxRN4_5q5juN-4lNvJp96NI84ubFILRmjBTFnRy6hWujQEaQp6-g96FzZxLoMslDQ1V2qh4JHqY0gpuqHd7aEF1i6nbJ-dsnhOdsmbbnL2j-PpdgUQu1Ccuujtrfur939jfwMpLKe9</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1765842668</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Cambridge Journals Online</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><creator>Shaik, Muhammad Amin ; Xu, Xin ; Chan, Qun Lin ; Hui, Richard Jor Yeong ; Chong, Steven Shih Tsze ; Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian ; Dong, YanHong</creator><creatorcontrib>Shaik, Muhammad Amin ; Xu, Xin ; Chan, Qun Lin ; Hui, Richard Jor Yeong ; Chong, Steven Shih Tsze ; Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian ; Dong, YanHong</creatorcontrib><description>The validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in primary healthcare has not been established. Therefore, the present study examined the validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in government subsidized primary healthcare centers in Singapore. Eligible patients (≥60 years old) were recruited from primary healthcare centers and their informants received the AD8. Patient-informant dyads who agreed for further cognitive assessments received the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and a locally validated formal neuropsychological battery at a research center in a tertiary hospital. 1,082 informants completed AD8 assessment at two primary healthcare centers. Of these, 309 patients-informant dyads were further assessed, of whom 243 (78.6%) were CDR = 0; 22 (7.1%) were CDR = 0.5; and 44 (14.2%) were CDR≥1. The mean administration time of the informant AD8 was 2.3 ± 1.0 minutes. The informant AD8 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85); inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.85); and test-retest reliability (weighted κ = 0.80). Concurrent validity, as measured by the correlation between total AD8 scores and CDR global (R = 0.65, p &lt; 0.001), CDR sum of boxes (R = 0.60, p &lt; 0.001), MMSE (R = -0.39, p &lt; 0.001), MoCA (R = -0.41, p &lt; 0.001), as well as the formal neuropsychological battery (R = -0.46, p &lt; 0.001), was good and consistent with previous studies. Construct validity, as measured by convergent validity (R ≥ 0.4) between individual items of AD8 with CDR and neuropsychological domains was acceptable. The informant AD8 demonstrated good concurrent and construct validity and is a reliable measure to detect cognitive dysfunction in primary healthcare.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1041-6102</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1741-203X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1041610215001702</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26489991</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Cognition Disorders - diagnosis ; Cognition Disorders - psychology ; Cognitive ability ; Dementia ; Dementia - diagnosis ; Female ; Humans ; Language ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Mass Screening - methods ; Middle Aged ; Neuropsychological Tests - standards ; Neuropsychology ; Older people ; Primary care ; Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration ; Reproducibility of Results ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Singapore ; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><ispartof>International psychogeriatrics, 2016-03, Vol.28 (3), p.443-452</ispartof><rights>Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1765842668/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1765842668?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,12873,21422,21423,27957,27958,31034,33646,33647,34565,34566,43768,44150,73317,74578,74996</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26489991$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shaik, Muhammad Amin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Qun Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hui, Richard Jor Yeong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chong, Steven Shih Tsze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, YanHong</creatorcontrib><title>The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare</title><title>International psychogeriatrics</title><addtitle>Int. Psychogeriatr</addtitle><description>The validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in primary healthcare has not been established. Therefore, the present study examined the validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in government subsidized primary healthcare centers in Singapore. Eligible patients (≥60 years old) were recruited from primary healthcare centers and their informants received the AD8. Patient-informant dyads who agreed for further cognitive assessments received the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and a locally validated formal neuropsychological battery at a research center in a tertiary hospital. 1,082 informants completed AD8 assessment at two primary healthcare centers. Of these, 309 patients-informant dyads were further assessed, of whom 243 (78.6%) were CDR = 0; 22 (7.1%) were CDR = 0.5; and 44 (14.2%) were CDR≥1. The mean administration time of the informant AD8 was 2.3 ± 1.0 minutes. The informant AD8 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85); inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.85); and test-retest reliability (weighted κ = 0.80). Concurrent validity, as measured by the correlation between total AD8 scores and CDR global (R = 0.65, p &lt; 0.001), CDR sum of boxes (R = 0.60, p &lt; 0.001), MMSE (R = -0.39, p &lt; 0.001), MoCA (R = -0.41, p &lt; 0.001), as well as the formal neuropsychological battery (R = -0.46, p &lt; 0.001), was good and consistent with previous studies. Construct validity, as measured by convergent validity (R ≥ 0.4) between individual items of AD8 with CDR and neuropsychological domains was acceptable. The informant AD8 demonstrated good concurrent and construct validity and is a reliable measure to detect cognitive dysfunction in primary healthcare.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Cognition Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cognition Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Dementia</subject><subject>Dementia - diagnosis</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Logistic Models</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</subject><subject>Neuropsychology</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Singapore</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</subject><issn>1041-6102</issn><issn>1741-203X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtP3TAQha0KVCjtD2CDLLHpJsVjx48sEX1KSCxKJXbRJHa4Rkl8sX2p7rL_vI64VFVRxcoene-c0cwQcgzsAzDQZ9-B1aCAcZCs1Iy_Ioega6g4Ezd75V_katEPyJuU7hjjUkD9mhxwVZumaeCQ_LpeORrd6LHzo89birOlDzh6uxRhoLnofh5CnHDO9Pyjod2W9mFaY_QpzPSnzyuKNLnoXVoMfbidffYPjmJKLqXJFV8OYUwlh66jnzBu6crhmFc9RveW7A84Jvdu9x6RH58_XV98rS6vvny7OL-sesnrXHXIjeSqaYQYwHQDSKuYYVpZlFogK4oBtGB61E0NqNCauhk6q42UnQBxRN4_5q5juN-4lNvJp96NI84ubFILRmjBTFnRy6hWujQEaQp6-g96FzZxLoMslDQ1V2qh4JHqY0gpuqHd7aEF1i6nbJ-dsnhOdsmbbnL2j-PpdgUQu1Ccuujtrfur939jfwMpLKe9</recordid><startdate>20160301</startdate><enddate>20160301</enddate><creator>Shaik, Muhammad Amin</creator><creator>Xu, Xin</creator><creator>Chan, Qun Lin</creator><creator>Hui, Richard Jor Yeong</creator><creator>Chong, Steven Shih Tsze</creator><creator>Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian</creator><creator>Dong, YanHong</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7TK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160301</creationdate><title>The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare</title><author>Shaik, Muhammad Amin ; Xu, Xin ; Chan, Qun Lin ; Hui, Richard Jor Yeong ; Chong, Steven Shih Tsze ; Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian ; Dong, YanHong</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Cognition Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cognition Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Dementia</topic><topic>Dementia - diagnosis</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Logistic Models</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</topic><topic>Neuropsychology</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Primary Health Care - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Singapore</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shaik, Muhammad Amin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Xin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chan, Qun Lin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hui, Richard Jor Yeong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chong, Steven Shih Tsze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dong, YanHong</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Social Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Sociology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><jtitle>International psychogeriatrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shaik, Muhammad Amin</au><au>Xu, Xin</au><au>Chan, Qun Lin</au><au>Hui, Richard Jor Yeong</au><au>Chong, Steven Shih Tsze</au><au>Chen, Christopher Li-Hsian</au><au>Dong, YanHong</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare</atitle><jtitle>International psychogeriatrics</jtitle><addtitle>Int. Psychogeriatr</addtitle><date>2016-03-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>443</spage><epage>452</epage><pages>443-452</pages><issn>1041-6102</issn><eissn>1741-203X</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>The validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in primary healthcare has not been established. Therefore, the present study examined the validity and reliability of the informant AD8 in government subsidized primary healthcare centers in Singapore. Eligible patients (≥60 years old) were recruited from primary healthcare centers and their informants received the AD8. Patient-informant dyads who agreed for further cognitive assessments received the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and a locally validated formal neuropsychological battery at a research center in a tertiary hospital. 1,082 informants completed AD8 assessment at two primary healthcare centers. Of these, 309 patients-informant dyads were further assessed, of whom 243 (78.6%) were CDR = 0; 22 (7.1%) were CDR = 0.5; and 44 (14.2%) were CDR≥1. The mean administration time of the informant AD8 was 2.3 ± 1.0 minutes. The informant AD8 demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.85); inter-rater reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) = 0.85); and test-retest reliability (weighted κ = 0.80). Concurrent validity, as measured by the correlation between total AD8 scores and CDR global (R = 0.65, p &lt; 0.001), CDR sum of boxes (R = 0.60, p &lt; 0.001), MMSE (R = -0.39, p &lt; 0.001), MoCA (R = -0.41, p &lt; 0.001), as well as the formal neuropsychological battery (R = -0.46, p &lt; 0.001), was good and consistent with previous studies. Construct validity, as measured by convergent validity (R ≥ 0.4) between individual items of AD8 with CDR and neuropsychological domains was acceptable. The informant AD8 demonstrated good concurrent and construct validity and is a reliable measure to detect cognitive dysfunction in primary healthcare.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>26489991</pmid><doi>10.1017/S1041610215001702</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1041-6102
ispartof International psychogeriatrics, 2016-03, Vol.28 (3), p.443-452
issn 1041-6102
1741-203X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1837308253
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Cambridge Journals Online; Social Science Premium Collection; Sociology Collection
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cognition Disorders - diagnosis
Cognition Disorders - psychology
Cognitive ability
Dementia
Dementia - diagnosis
Female
Humans
Language
Logistic Models
Male
Mass Screening - methods
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests - standards
Neuropsychology
Older people
Primary care
Primary Health Care - organization & administration
Reproducibility of Results
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Singapore
Surveys and Questionnaires - standards
title The reliability and validity of the informant AD8 by comparison with a series of cognitive assessment tools in primary healthcare
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T21%3A30%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20reliability%20and%20validity%20of%20the%20informant%20AD8%20by%20comparison%20with%20a%20series%20of%20cognitive%20assessment%20tools%20in%20primary%20healthcare&rft.jtitle=International%20psychogeriatrics&rft.au=Shaik,%20Muhammad%20Amin&rft.date=2016-03-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=443&rft.epage=452&rft.pages=443-452&rft.issn=1041-6102&rft.eissn=1741-203X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1041610215001702&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1837308253%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c524t-ba285269933f18bf15d608076da573a069981ad18ca7941a6ad849fbd7855b313%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1765842668&rft_id=info:pmid/26489991&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1041610215001702&rfr_iscdi=true