| Title |
Comparing the Standard and Electronic Versions of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — Cognitive Subscale: A Validation Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, June 2019
|
| DOI | 10.14283/jpad.2019.27 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Todd M. Solomon, J. M. Barbone, H. T. Feaster, D. S. Miller, G. B. deBros, C. A. Murphy, D. Michalczuk |
| Abstract |
The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) has become the de facto gold-standard for assessing the efficacy of putative anti-dementia treatments. There has been an increasing interest in providing greater standardization, automation, and administration consistency to the scale. Recently, electronic versions of the ADAS-Cog (eADAS-Cog) have been utilized in clinical trials and demonstrated significant reductions in frequency of rater error as compared to paper. In order to establish validity of the electronic version (eADAS-Cog), 20 subjects who had received a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) at a private US Memory Clinic completed a single-center, randomized, counterbalanced, prospective trial comparing a version of the eADAS-Cog to the standard paper scale. Interclass Correlation Coefficient on total scores and Kappa analysis on domain scores yielded high agreement (0.88 - 0.99). Effects of order and mode of administration on ADAS-Cog total scores did not demonstrate a significant main effect. Overall, this study establishes adequate concurrent validity between the ADAS-Cog and eADAS-Cog among an adult population with diagnosed AD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 4 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 3 | 15% |
| Chemical Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,697,457
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#197
of 595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,868
of 368,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 368,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.