The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Issue 21 (10th August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: Journal of clinical nursing. Volume 24:Issue 21/22(2015)
• Page Start: 3118
• Page End: 3128
• Publication Date: 2015-08-10
• Subjects: Nursing -- Periodicals; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 610.7305
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12941
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0962-1067

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="jocn12941-abs-0001"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Aims and objectives</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Design</title> <p>This was a cross‐sectional, descriptive study.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0005" sec-type="section"> <title>Results</title> <p>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.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0006" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusion</title> <p>The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.</p> </sec> <sec id="jocn12941-sec-0007" sec-type="section"> <title>Relevance to clinical practice</title> <p>This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.</p> </sec> </abstract>