IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i21-22p3118-3128.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Chia‐Wei Chen
  • Hsin Chu
  • Chia‐Fen Tsai
  • Hui‐Ling Yang
  • Jui‐Chen Tsai
  • Min‐Huey Chung
  • Yuan‐Mei Liao
  • Mei‐ju Chi
  • Kuei‐Ru Chou

Abstract

Aims and objectives The purpose of this study was to translate the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale into Chinese and to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) and the diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale. Background The accurate detection of early dementia requires screening tools with favourable cross‐cultural linguistic and appropriate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values, particularly for Chinese‐speaking populations. Design This was a cross‐sectional, descriptive study. Methods Overall, 130 participants suspected to have cognitive impairment were enrolled in the study. A test‐retest for determining reliability was scheduled four weeks after the initial test. Content validity was determined by five experts, whereas construct validity was established by using contrasted group technique. The participants' clinical diagnoses were used as the standard in calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value. Results The study revealed that the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited a test‐retest reliability of 0·90, an internal consistency reliability of 0·71, an inter‐rater reliability (kappa value) of 0·88 and a content validity index of 0·97. Both the patients and healthy contrast group exhibited significant differences in their cognitive ability. The optimal cut‐off points for the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale in the test for mild cognitive impairment and dementia were 24 and 22, respectively; moreover, for these two conditions, the sensitivities of the scale were 0·79 and 0·76, the specificities were 0·91 and 0·81, the areas under the curve were 0·85 and 0·78, the positive predictive values were 0·99 and 0·83 and the negative predictive values were 0·96 and 0·91 respectively. Conclusion The Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale exhibited sound reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. Relevance to clinical practice This scale can help clinical staff members to quickly and accurately diagnose cognitive impairment and provide appropriate treatment as early as possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia‐Wei Chen & Hsin Chu & Chia‐Fen Tsai & Hui‐Ling Yang & Jui‐Chen Tsai & Min‐Huey Chung & Yuan‐Mei Liao & Mei‐ju Chi & Kuei‐Ru Chou, 2015. "The reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the Chinese version of the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(21-22), pages 3118-3128, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:21-22:p:3118-3128
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12941
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12941?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:21-22:p:3118-3128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.