Background/Aims: To investigate the effectiveness of an item response theory (IRT)-based approach to staging dementia. Methods: IRT estimates of dementia severity in 1,485 patients were used to stage dementia and then compared to dementia staging using the classic Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) algorithm and the Sum of the Boxes (SOB) approach. Results: Measurement imprecision was highest when dementia stages were determined based on the classic algorithm (48% of sample), lower when they were determined based on the SOB approach (12%), and lowest when determined using IRT-based staging (0%). Conclusion: The classic CDR algorithm weights boxes largely according to clinical experience. The SOB approach weights all boxes equally. The IRT approach weights boxes according to their actual ability to identify dementia severity and therefore provides the most precise information for staging dementia.

Keywords:
Alzheimerߣs disease, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, Item response theory
1.
Morris JC: The Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993;43:2412–2414.
2.
O’Bryant SE, Waring SC, Munro Cullum C, Hall J, Lacritz L, Massman PJ, Lupo PJ, Reisch JS, Doody RS: Staging dementia using clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes scores. Arch Neurol 2008;65:1091–1095.
3.
O’Bryant SE, Lacritz LH, Hall J, Waring SC, Chan W, Khodr ZG, Massman PJ, Hobson VC, Cullum CM: Validation of the new interpretive guidelines for the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes score in the national Alzheimer’s coordinating center database. Arch Neurol 2010;67:746–749.
4.
Balsis S, Unger AA, Benge JF, Geraci L, Doody RS: Gaining precision on the ADAS-cog: a comparison of IRT-based scores and total scores. Submitted.
5.
Doody RS, Pavlik V, Massman P, et al: Changing patient characteristics and survival experience in an Alzheimer’s disease center patient cohort. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2005;20:198–208.
6.
McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–944.
7.
Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Jane Rogers H: Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Newbury Park, Sage Publications, 1991.
8.
Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, Erlbaum, 2000.
9.
Thissen D: Multilog User’s Guide, Version 6.3. Scientific Software. 1991.
10.
Samejima F: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometr Monogr Suppl 1969;34:100–114.
11.
Thissen D, Nelson L, Rosa K, McLeod LD: Item response theory for items scored in more than two categories; in Thissen D, Wainer D (eds): Test Scoring. London, Erlbaum, 2001, pp 141–186.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.