Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, The affiliated Wuxi Mental Health Center of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.
Department of Psychology, Graduate School of Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, China.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 Dec;34(sup1):43-53. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2020.1750704. Epub 2020 Apr 11.
To evaluate reliability and concurrent validity of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale, Chinese Version (ADAS-Cog-C) among Chinese community older adults.
Three groups, comprising of 1,276 community-dwelling older adults, were included in this study: a normal control (NC), a mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and an Alzheimer's disease (AD) group. All participants were assessed through ADAS-Cog-C, clinical interviews, physical examinations, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR). Internal consistency was assessed to evaluate the reliability of ADAS-Cog-C. Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate the concurrent validity between ADAS-Cog-C, MMSE, and CDR.
Overall, the Cronbach's alpha coefficients of ADAS-Cog-C for the AD and MCI groups were 0.843 and 0.554, respectively. The split-half reliability coefficients for the AD and MCI groups were 0.860 and 0.539, respectively. ADAS-Cog-C scores were negatively correlated with MMSE scores ( = -0.706, < 0.001) and positively associated with CDR scores ( = 0.546, < 0.001). After excluding the MCI group from the analysis, the internal consistency of ADAS-Cog-C for the total population improved (α = 0.813, = 0.852, all < 0.001), as did the correlation between ADAS-Cog-C and MMSE ( = -0.828, < 0.001) and CDR ( = 0.429, all < 0.001) scores.
ADAS-Cog-C has good internal consistency and concurrent validity for assessing Chinese community older adults with AD, but poor consistency, good concurrent validity with the MMSE while moderate concurrent validity with the CDR for MCI.
评估阿尔茨海默病评估量表-认知分量表中文版（ADAS-Cog-C）在中国社区老年人中的信度和同时效度。
本研究纳入了三组人群，共 1276 名社区居住的老年人，包括正常对照组（NC）、轻度认知障碍组（MCI）和阿尔茨海默病组（AD）。所有参与者均通过 ADAS-Cog-C、临床访谈、体格检查、简易精神状态检查（MMSE）和临床痴呆评定量表（CDR）进行评估。采用内部一致性评估 ADAS-Cog-C 的信度，采用 Pearson 和 Spearman 相关系数评估 ADAS-Cog-C 与 MMSE 和 CDR 的同时效度。
总体而言，AD 组和 MCI 组 ADAS-Cog-C 的 Cronbach's alpha 系数分别为 0.843 和 0.554。AD 组和 MCI 组的半分信度系数分别为 0.860 和 0.539。ADAS-Cog-C 评分与 MMSE 评分呈负相关（r = -0.706， < 0.001），与 CDR 评分呈正相关（r = 0.546， < 0.001）。排除 MCI 组后，ADAS-Cog-C 对总体人群的内部一致性得到改善（α = 0.813，r = 0.852，均 < 0.001），ADAS-Cog-C 与 MMSE（r = -0.828， < 0.001）和 CDR（r = 0.429，均 < 0.001）评分的相关性也得到改善。
ADAS-Cog-C 在中国社区老年人 AD 评估中具有良好的内部一致性和同时效度，但在 MCI 中一致性较差，与 MMSE 具有良好的同时效度，与 CDR 具有中等的同时效度。
