↓ Skip to main content

Validation therapy for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
1 tweeter
6 Wikipedia pages


132 Dimensions

Readers on

307 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Validation therapy for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001394
Pubmed ID

Martin Neal, Philip Barton Wright


Validation therapy was developed by Naomi Feil between 1963 and 1980 for older people with cognitive impairments. Initially, this did not include those with organically-based dementia, but the approach has subsequently been applied in work with people who have a dementia diagnosis. Feil's own approach classifies individuals with cognitive impairment as having one of four stages in a continuum of dementia: these stages are Mal orientation, Time Confusion, Repetitive Motion and Vegetation. The therapy is based on the general principle of validation, the acceptance of the reality and personal truth of another's experience, and incorporates a range of specific techniques. Validation therapy has attracted a good deal of criticism from researchers who dispute the evidence for some of the beliefs and values of validation therapy, and the appropriateness of the techniques. Feil, however, argues strongly for the effectiveness of validation therapy. To evaluate the effectiveness of validation therapy for people diagnosed as having dementia of any type, or cognitive impairment The trials were identified from the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) on 8 January 2003 using the terms validation therapy, VTD and emotion-oriented care. The Specialized Register at that time contained records from the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCLIT, and SIGLE and many trials databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining validation therapy as an intervention for dementia were considered for inclusion in the review. The criteria for inclusion comprised systematic assessment of the quality of study design and the risk of bias. Data were extracted independently by both reviewers. Authors were contacted for data not provided in the papers. Psychological scales measuring cognition, behaviour, emotional state and activities of daily living were examined. Three studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria (Peoples 1982; Robb 1986; Toseland 1997) incorporating data on a total of 116 patients (42 in experimental groups, and 74 in the control groups (usual care 43 and social contact 21, 10 in reality orientation). It was not possible to pool the data from the 3 included studies, either because of the different lengths of treatment or choice of different control treatments, or because the outcome measures were not comparable. Two significant results were found:Peoples 1982 - Validation versus usual care. Behaviour at 6 weeks [MD --5.97, 95% CI (-9.43 to -2.51) P=0.0007, completers analysis] favours validation therapy. Toseland 1997 - Validation versus social contact. Depression at 12 months (MOSES) [MD -4.01, 95% CI (-7.74 to - 0.28) P=0.04, completers analysis], favours validation. There were no statistically significant differences between validation and social contact or between validation and usual therapy. There were no assessments of carers. There is insufficient evidence from randomized trials to allow any conclusion about the efficacy of validation therapy for people with dementia or cognitive impairment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 301 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 68 22%
Student > Master 51 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 15%
Researcher 34 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 5%
Other 51 17%
Unknown 44 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 23%
Psychology 58 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 15%
Social Sciences 25 8%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 47 15%
Unknown 53 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 21 August 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,009,769 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 193,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,009,769 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,608 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 193,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.