McPherson F M, Gamsu C V, Kiemle G, Ritchie S M, Stanley A M, Tregaskis D
Br J Clin Psychol. 1985 May;24 ( Pt 2):83-91. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1985.tb01318.x.
The concurrent validity of the survey version of the Clifton Assessment Procedures for the Elderly (CAPE) was assessed by comparing the performance of four groups of elderly women selected to represent different levels of impairment and dependency. It was found to discriminate significantly among patients with severe (n = 100), moderate (n = 40), mild (n = 50) and no (n = 20) dementia; it also significantly distinguished between patients with severe and moderate dementia and patients with physical disability (n = 100) and with signs of 'institutionalization' (n = 25). Patients in the severe, moderate, mild and no dementia groups had all been judged clinically to have been placed appropriately as, respectively, geriatric psychiatry in-patients, geriatric psychiatry day-patients or local authority home residents, or as being able to live independently in the community. However, although the survey version dependency grade is intended for use in allocating patients to health and social services facilities, overall agreement between grades and clinically determined placement was only 63 per cent. Thus while the survey version may be useful in discriminating among groups of elderly people of different levels of impairment for research or screening purposes, its clinical value with individual patients remains uncertain.
通过比较四组被选来代表不同损伤和依赖程度的老年女性的表现，对《老年人克利夫顿评估程序》（CAPE）调查版本的同时效度进行了评估。结果发现，它能在患有严重痴呆（n = 100）、中度痴呆（n = 40）、轻度痴呆（n = 50）和无痴呆（n = 20）的患者之间做出显著区分；它还能显著区分患有严重和中度痴呆的患者与患有身体残疾（n = 100）和有“机构化”迹象（n = 25）的患者。严重、中度、轻度和无痴呆组的患者在临床上都被判定安置得当，分别为老年精神病住院患者、老年精神病日间患者或地方当局家庭居民，或者能够独立生活在社区。然而，尽管调查版本的依赖等级旨在用于将患者分配到健康和社会服务设施，但等级与临床确定的安置之间的总体一致性仅为63%。因此，虽然调查版本可能有助于在研究或筛查目的上区分不同损伤程度的老年人群体，但其对个体患者的临床价值仍不确定。
