Dataset Information

Enhancing 'meaningfulness' of functional assessments: UK adaptation of the Amsterdam IADL questionnaire.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Commonly used measures of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) do not capture activities for a technologically advancing society. This study aimed to adapt the proxy/informant-based Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire (A-IADL-Q) for use in the UK and develop a self-report version.

Design

An iterative mixed method cross-cultural adaptation of the A-IADL-Q and the development of a self-report version involving a three-step design: (1) interviews and focus groups with lay and professional stakeholders to assess face and content validity; (2) a questionnaire to measure item relevance to older adults in the U.K.; (3) a pilot of the adapted questionnaire in people with cognitive impairment.

Setting

Community settings in the UK.

Participants

One hundred and forty-eight participants took part across the three steps: (1) 14 dementia professionals; 8 people with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; and 6 relatives of people with MCI or dementia; (2) 92 older adults without cognitive impairment; and (3) 28 people with SCD or MCI.

Measurements

The cultural relevance and applicability of the A-IADL-Q scale items were assessed using a 6-point Likert scale. Cognitive and functional performance was measured using a battery of cognitive and functional measures.

Results

Iterative modifications to the scale resulted in a 55-item adapted version appropriate for UK use (A-IADL-Q-UK). Pilot data revealed that the new and revised items performed well. Four new items correlated with the weighted average score (Kendall's Tau -.388, -.445, -.497, -.569). An exploratory analysis of convergent validity found correlations in the expected direction with cognitive and functional measures.

Conclusion

The A-IADL-Q-UK provides a measurement of functional decline for use in the UK that captures culturally relevant activities. A new self-report version has been developed and is ready for testing. Further evaluation of the A-IADL-Q-UK for construct validity is now needed.

SUBMITTER: Stringer G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482374 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) limitations are associated with reduced health-related quality of life for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). For these people, the assessment of IADL is crucial to the diagnostic process, as well as for the evaluation of new interventions addressing MCI. The Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire Short Version (A-IADL-Q-SV) is an established assessment tool with good psychometric properties that has been shown to be robust to cultural differences in Western countries. The aims of this study were to: (1) cross-culturally adapt and validate the A-IADL-Q-SV for the German-speaking population of Switzerland; (2) investigate its cultural comparability; and (3) evaluate further psychometric properties. METHODS:The A-IADL-Q-SV German was pretested on clinicians and participants in a memory clinic setting. The psychometric properties and cultural comparability of the questionnaire were investigated in memory clinic settings including participants with MCI or mild dementia, as well as participants with normal cognition recruited from the community. Item response theory (IRT) was applied to investigate measurement invariance by means of differential item functioning to assess item bias. Additionally, the test-retest reliability on scale level, the construct validity through hypothesis testing and the discriminant validity of the A-IADL-Q-SV German were evaluated. RESULTS:Ninety-six informants of participants with normal cognition, MCI or mild dementia completed the A-IADL-Q-SV German. The basic assumptions for IRT scoring were met. No meaningful differential item functioning for culture was detected between the Swiss and Dutch reference samples. High test-retest reliability on scale level (ICC 0.93; 95% CI 0.9-0.96) was found. More than 75% of the observed correlations between the A-IADL-Q-SV German and clinical measures of cognition and functional status were found to be in the direction and of the magnitude hypothesized. The A-IADL-Q-SV German was shown to be able to discriminate between participants with normal cognition and MCI, as well as MCI and mild dementia. CONCLUSIONS:The A-IADL-Q-SV German is a psychometrically robust measurement tool for a Swiss population with normal cognition, MCI and mild dementia. Thus, it provides a valuable tool to assess IADL functioning in clinical practices and research settings in Switzerland. Trial registration This study was registered retrospectively in July 2019 on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04012398).

Project description:Psychometric properties of perceptual assessments, like reliability, depend on stochastic properties of psychophysical sampling procedures resulting in method variability, as well as inter- and intra-subject variability. Method variability is commonly minimized by optimizing sampling procedures through computer simulations. Inter-subject variability is inherent to the population of interest and cannot be influenced. Intra-subject variability introduced by confounds (e.g., inattention or lack of motivation) cannot be simply quantified from experimental data, as these data also include method variability. Therefore, this aspect is generally neglected when developing assessments. Yet, comparing method variability and intra-subject variability could give insights on whether effort should be invested in optimizing the sampling procedure, or in addressing potential confounds instead. We propose a new approach to estimate intra-subject variability of psychometric functions by combining computer simulations and behavioral data, and to account for it when simulating experiments. The approach was illustrated in a real-world scenario of proprioceptive difference threshold assessments. The behavioral study revealed a test-retest reliability of r = 0.212. Computer simulations without considering intra-subject variability predicted a reliability of r = 0.768, whereas the new approach including an intra-subject variability model lead to a realistic estimate of reliability (r = 0.207). Such a model also allows computing the theoretically maximally attainable reliability (r = 0.552) assuming an ideal sampling procedure. Comparing the reliability estimates when exclusively accounting for method variability versus intra-subject variability reveals that intra-subject variability should be reduced by addressing confounds and that only optimizing the sampling procedure may be insufficient to achieve a high reliability. This new approach allows computing the intra-subject variability with only two measurements per subject, and predicting the reliability for a larger number of subjects and retests based on simulations, without requiring additional experiments. Such a tool of predictive value is especially valuable for target populations where time is scarce, e.g., for assessments in clinical settings.