The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale

Chia Wei Chen, Hsin Chu, Chia Fen Tsai, Hui Ling Yang, Jui Chen Tsai, Min Huey Chung, Yuan Mei Liao, Mei ju Chi, Kuei Ru Chou

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

3 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Aims and objectives: The purpose of this study was to translate the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and the diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Background: The accurate detection of early dementia requires screening tools with favourable cross-cultural linguistic and appropriate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, particularly for Chinese-speaking populations. Design: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: Overall, 130 participants suspected to have cognitive impairment were enrolled in the study. A test-retest for determining reliability was scheduled four weeks after the initial test. Content validity was determined by five experts, whereas construct validity was established by using contrasted group technique. The participants' clinical diagnoses were used as the standard in calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results: The study revealed that the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited a test-retest reliability of 0·90, an internal consistency reliability of 0·71, an inter-rater reliability (kappa value) of 0·88 and a content validity index of 0·97. Both the patients and healthy contrast group exhibited significant differences in their cognitive ability. The optimal cut-off points for the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale in the test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia were 24 and 22, respectively; moreover, for these two conditions, the sensitivities of the scale were 0·79 and 0·76, the specificities were 0·91 and 0·81, the areas under the curve were 0·85 and 0·78, the positive predictive values were 0·99 and 0·83 and the negative predictive values were 0·96 and 0·91 respectively. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Relevance to clinical practice: This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)3118-3128
頁數11
期刊Journal of Clinical Nursing
24
發行號21-22
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 十一月 1 2015

指紋

Reproducibility of Results
Dementia
Sensitivity and Specificity
Aptitude
Linguistics
Psychometrics
Area Under Curve
Cross-Sectional Studies
Population
Cognitive Dysfunction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

引用此文

The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. / Chen, Chia Wei; Chu, Hsin; Tsai, Chia Fen; Yang, Hui Ling; Tsai, Jui Chen; Chung, Min Huey; Liao, Yuan Mei; Chi, Mei ju; Chou, Kuei Ru.

於: Journal of Clinical Nursing, 卷 24, 編號 21-22, 01.11.2015, p. 3118-3128.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

Chen, Chia Wei ; Chu, Hsin ; Tsai, Chia Fen ; Yang, Hui Ling ; Tsai, Jui Chen ; Chung, Min Huey ; Liao, Yuan Mei ; Chi, Mei ju ; Chou, Kuei Ru. / The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. 於: Journal of Clinical Nursing. 2015 ; 卷 24, 編號 21-22. 頁 3118-3128.
@article{4d2ed2cc73de4e44b758426fddc5510c,
title = "The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale",
abstract = "Aims and objectives: The purpose of this study was to translate the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and the diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Background: The accurate detection of early dementia requires screening tools with favourable cross-cultural linguistic and appropriate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, particularly for Chinese-speaking populations. Design: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: Overall, 130 participants suspected to have cognitive impairment were enrolled in the study. A test-retest for determining reliability was scheduled four weeks after the initial test. Content validity was determined by five experts, whereas construct validity was established by using contrasted group technique. The participants' clinical diagnoses were used as the standard in calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results: The study revealed that the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited a test-retest reliability of 0·90, an internal consistency reliability of 0·71, an inter-rater reliability (kappa value) of 0·88 and a content validity index of 0·97. Both the patients and healthy contrast group exhibited significant differences in their cognitive ability. The optimal cut-off points for the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale in the test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia were 24 and 22, respectively; moreover, for these two conditions, the sensitivities of the scale were 0·79 and 0·76, the specificities were 0·91 and 0·81, the areas under the curve were 0·85 and 0·78, the positive predictive values were 0·99 and 0·83 and the negative predictive values were 0·96 and 0·91 respectively. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Relevance to clinical practice: This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.",
keywords = "Chinese, Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale, Dementia, Reliability, Sensitivity, Specificity, Validity",
author = "Chen, {Chia Wei} and Hsin Chu and Tsai, {Chia Fen} and Yang, {Hui Ling} and Tsai, {Jui Chen} and Chung, {Min Huey} and Liao, {Yuan Mei} and Chi, {Mei ju} and Chou, {Kuei Ru}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jocn.12941",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "3118--3128",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Nursing",
issn = "0962-1067",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "21-22",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale

AU - Chen, Chia Wei

AU - Chu, Hsin

AU - Tsai, Chia Fen

AU - Yang, Hui Ling

AU - Tsai, Jui Chen

AU - Chung, Min Huey

AU - Liao, Yuan Mei

AU - Chi, Mei ju

AU - Chou, Kuei Ru

PY - 2015/11/1

Y1 - 2015/11/1

N2 - Aims and objectives: The purpose of this study was to translate the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and the diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Background: The accurate detection of early dementia requires screening tools with favourable cross-cultural linguistic and appropriate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, particularly for Chinese-speaking populations. Design: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: Overall, 130 participants suspected to have cognitive impairment were enrolled in the study. A test-retest for determining reliability was scheduled four weeks after the initial test. Content validity was determined by five experts, whereas construct validity was established by using contrasted group technique. The participants' clinical diagnoses were used as the standard in calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results: The study revealed that the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited a test-retest reliability of 0·90, an internal consistency reliability of 0·71, an inter-rater reliability (kappa value) of 0·88 and a content validity index of 0·97. Both the patients and healthy contrast group exhibited significant differences in their cognitive ability. The optimal cut-off points for the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale in the test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia were 24 and 22, respectively; moreover, for these two conditions, the sensitivities of the scale were 0·79 and 0·76, the specificities were 0·91 and 0·81, the areas under the curve were 0·85 and 0·78, the positive predictive values were 0·99 and 0·83 and the negative predictive values were 0·96 and 0·91 respectively. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Relevance to clinical practice: This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.

AB - Aims and objectives: The purpose of this study was to translate the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and the diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Background: The accurate detection of early dementia requires screening tools with favourable cross-cultural linguistic and appropriate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, particularly for Chinese-speaking populations. Design: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: Overall, 130 participants suspected to have cognitive impairment were enrolled in the study. A test-retest for determining reliability was scheduled four weeks after the initial test. Content validity was determined by five experts, whereas construct validity was established by using contrasted group technique. The participants' clinical diagnoses were used as the standard in calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results: The study revealed that the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited a test-retest reliability of 0·90, an internal consistency reliability of 0·71, an inter-rater reliability (kappa value) of 0·88 and a content validity index of 0·97. Both the patients and healthy contrast group exhibited significant differences in their cognitive ability. The optimal cut-off points for the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale in the test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia were 24 and 22, respectively; moreover, for these two conditions, the sensitivities of the scale were 0·79 and 0·76, the specificities were 0·91 and 0·81, the areas under the curve were 0·85 and 0·78, the positive predictive values were 0·99 and 0·83 and the negative predictive values were 0·96 and 0·91 respectively. Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Relevance to clinical practice: This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.

KW - Chinese

KW - Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale

KW - Dementia

KW - Reliability

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Specificity

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943661343&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943661343&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jocn.12941

DO - 10.1111/jocn.12941

M3 - Article

C2 - 26259826

AN - SCOPUS:84943661343

VL - 24

SP - 3118

EP - 3128

JO - Journal of Clinical Nursing

JF - Journal of Clinical Nursing

SN - 0962-1067

IS - 21-22

ER -