The Neuropsychiatric Inventory--NPI. Validation of the Danish version.

Assessment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia has great clinical importance. The aim of the study was validation of the Danish version of the NPI, using assessments of 72 demented and 29 non-demented of age 65+ years and their caregivers at three visits. The NPI was administered by the same psychiatric nurse interviewing the same caregiver. At visits 1 and 3, a psychogeriatrician assessed the participant using the ICD-10, the Geriatric Deterioration Scale (GDS) and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) as well as the NPI in a visual analogue scale (VAS) version. These scores were blindly converted into scores equalling the frequency and severity of the NPI by one of the investigators. Data analysis comprised inter-rater reliabilities (intra-class coefficients, ICC); NPI scores and corresponding VAS scores were compared using Spearman's correlation coefficients. NPI scores at visits 1 and 2 were used to assess the test-retest reliabilities. The scalability of the NPI was assessed with Mokken and Loevinger coefficients. The ICC for all the NPI domains and the GDS (>0.80) were perfect, the ICC for the NPI-VAS (0.68-0.95) and the CGI (0.69) was satisfactory to perfect. Correlations between NPI and NPI-VAS were high; only two domains had coefficients below 0.60: depression and agitation/aggression. NPI-total scores increase with increasing severity of dementia. The NPI did not fulfil the scalability assessed by the Mokken and Loevinger coefficients. The NPI Danish version is valid and reliable in assessing neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia but not fully scalable. The use of single item scores and not total sum score is recommended.

Rating scales for depression in the elderly: external and internal validity.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the external and internal validity of the 6- and 17-item versions of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(6) and HAM-D(17)), the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale, the 15- and 30-item versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia in a population of depressed demented and nondemented Danish elderly. METHOD: Two clinicians performed independent, blinded assessments of the study population, which was drawn from psychogeriatric outpatient clinics, and a control group of elderly subjects. Concurrent and convergent validity were assessed using correlation coefficient analyses, and to evaluate the internal validity, item response analysis using the Mokken coefficient and Rasch analysis was performed. A coefficient of homogeneity of 0.40 or higher indicated scalability. Data collection took place between October 2001 and April 2004. RESULTS: 145 subjects were included; 102 were female (mean age = 78.6 +/-6.8 years), and 43 were male (mean age = 72.4 +/-5.6 years). In the study group (N = 109), 73 subjects had depression only, and 36 had both depression and dementia; in the control group (N = 36), 11 subjects had dementia. The item-response analysis made a clear distinction between the scales. The HAM-D(6) was the only scale that fulfilled the criterion of total scalability in both the cognitively intact and the impaired populations. In terms of standardization according to the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness scale (CGI-S), the HAM-D(6) had the most convincing external validity overall. In terms of general correlation to the CGI-S, only small differences were shown between the scales. CONCLUSION: The HAM-D(6) should be separately considered even when longer HAM-D versions are used for the measurement of depression in elderly persons.

The Geriatric Depression Scale and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. A validity study.

The study is a validation study of two psychogeriatric depression rating scales, The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). The sensitivity and specificity, and the convergent and criterion validity of the two scales as well as the inter-rater reliability of the CSDD are reported. Two independent clinicians using the ICD-10 for depression and dementia, the Clinical Global Impression (CGI), the Hamilton Depression rating scale 17-items and the Mini-Mental-State Examination (MMSE), interviewed each patient or control subject. One hundred forty-five persons of 65 years or more of age were included, 73 were depressed only, 36 depressed and demented; 36 persons were control subjects, 11 of these were demented. The inter-rater reliabilities were high or very high equalling perfect correlation. There was very high convergent validity between the screening tools and the severity scales; the shorter versions of the GDS (15-, 10- or four-item version) had lower though still almost perfect correlations. The criterion validity in the total population showed the CSDD as the better scale with sensitivity and specificity of 93% and 97% with a cut-off value of > or =6. The GDS versions had sensitivities and specificities ranging from 82% to 90% and 75% to 94% respectively with cut-off values > or =9, 4, 3 and 1. The CSDD retained its validity and specificity as a screening tool for depression in a population of demented, while the GDS versions all diminished in validity. The GDS and the CSDD are both valid screening tools for depression in the elderly; however, the CSDD alone seems to be equally valid in populations of demented and non-demented.