Questioning the Meaning of a Change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog): Noncomparable Scores and Item-Specific Effects Over Time

9Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Longitudinal invariance indicates that a construct is measured over time in the same way, and this fundamental scale property is a sine qua non to track change over time using ordinary mean comparisons. The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive (ADAS-Cog) and its subscale scores are often used to monitor the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, but longitudinal invariance has not been formally evaluated. A configural invariance model was used to evaluate ADAS-Cog data as a three correlated factors structure for two visits over 6 months, and four visits over 2 years (baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months) among 341 participants with Alzheimer’s disease. We also attempted to model ADAS-Cog subscales individually, and furthermore added item-specific latent variables. Neither the three-correlated factors ADAS-Cog model, nor its subscales viewed unidimensionally, achieved longitudinal configural invariance under a traditional modeling approach. No subscale achieved scalar invariance when considered unidimensional across 6 months or 2 years of assessment. In models accounting for item-specific effects, configural and metric invariance were achieved for language and memory subscales. Although some of the ADAS-Cog individual items were reliable, comparisons of summed ADAS-Cog scores and subscale scores over time may not be meaningful due to a lack of longitudinal invariance.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cogo-Moreira, H., Krance, S. H., Black, S. E., Herrmann, N., Lanctôt, K. L., MacIntosh, B. J., … Swardfager, W. (2021). Questioning the Meaning of a Change on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog): Noncomparable Scores and Item-Specific Effects Over Time. Assessment, 28(6), 1708–1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120915273

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free