Cutoffs of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living-Compensation (IADL-C) Scale for Identification of Functional Limitations Consistent With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia.

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Samina Rahman, Shenghai Dai, David J Libon, Ellen Woo, Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe
{"title":"Cutoffs of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living-Compensation (IADL-C) Scale for Identification of Functional Limitations Consistent With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Dementia.","authors":"Samina Rahman, Shenghai Dai, David J Libon, Ellen Woo, Maureen Schmitter-Edgecombe","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acaf028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Understanding how well older individuals with suspected cognitive impairment are functioning within the real-world environment can have important implications for diagnosis and treatment. To evaluate whether an individual is experiencing functional limitations suggesting the presence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, we establish diagnostic cutoff scores for the informant version of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living-Compensation (IADL-C) scale.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Informants of research (n = 488) and clinical (n = 119) samples of participants designated as healthy older controls, MCI, or dementia completed the IADL-C. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and diagnostic statistics were used to determine optimal cutoffs on the IADL-C for both the 27-item IADL-C and an 11-item short form created using item-level analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The optimal cutoff scores that maximized the Youden Index for the research sample long-form were 1.41 in distinguishing cognitively healthy versus MCI participants, and 3.60 in distinguishing dementia from MCI participants, favoring specificity for the clinical sample, the optimal cutoffs were 1.32 and 3.06, yielding higher sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These cutoff scores, when used as a screening measure or combined with other clinical and cognitive measures, may be useful for understanding whether an individual may be experiencing functional difficulties in everyday life consistent with a diagnosis of MCI or dementia.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf028","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Understanding how well older individuals with suspected cognitive impairment are functioning within the real-world environment can have important implications for diagnosis and treatment. To evaluate whether an individual is experiencing functional limitations suggesting the presence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, we establish diagnostic cutoff scores for the informant version of the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living-Compensation (IADL-C) scale.

Method: Informants of research (n = 488) and clinical (n = 119) samples of participants designated as healthy older controls, MCI, or dementia completed the IADL-C. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and diagnostic statistics were used to determine optimal cutoffs on the IADL-C for both the 27-item IADL-C and an 11-item short form created using item-level analysis.

Results: The optimal cutoff scores that maximized the Youden Index for the research sample long-form were 1.41 in distinguishing cognitively healthy versus MCI participants, and 3.60 in distinguishing dementia from MCI participants, favoring specificity for the clinical sample, the optimal cutoffs were 1.32 and 3.06, yielding higher sensitivity.

Conclusions: These cutoff scores, when used as a screening measure or combined with other clinical and cognitive measures, may be useful for understanding whether an individual may be experiencing functional difficulties in everyday life consistent with a diagnosis of MCI or dementia.

日常生活补偿工具活动(IADL-C)量表用于识别与轻度认知障碍和痴呆相一致的功能限制的截止点
目的:了解疑似认知障碍的老年人在现实环境中的功能如何,对诊断和治疗具有重要意义。为了评估个体是否正在经历提示轻度认知障碍(MCI)或痴呆存在的功能限制,我们为日常生活补偿工具活动(IADL-C)量表的信息版本建立了诊断截止分数。方法:研究(n = 488)和临床(n = 119)被指定为健康老年人对照、轻度认知障碍或痴呆症的参与者完成了IADL-C。使用受试者工作特征曲线分析和诊断统计来确定27个项目的IADL-C和使用项目水平分析创建的11个项目的简短表格的最佳截止点。结果:在区分认知健康与MCI参与者时,使研究样本长期约登指数最大化的最佳截止得分为1.41,在区分痴呆与MCI参与者时,最佳截止得分为3.60,有利于临床样本的特异性,最佳截止得分为1.32和3.06,产生更高的灵敏度。结论:这些临界值,当用作筛查措施或与其他临床和认知措施相结合时,可能有助于了解个体是否可能在日常生活中经历与MCI或痴呆诊断一致的功能困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信