Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Psychometric characteristics of the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) as an early detection instrument for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Brazil.

International Psychogeriatrics / Ipa

Reproducibility of Results, Activities of Daily Living, Reference Values, statistics & numerical data, Psychometrics, Patient Care Team, Neuropsychological Tests, Middle Aged, Male, Humans, Female, Diagnosis, Differential, Cross-Cultural Comparison, psychology, diagnosis, Cognition Disorders, Brazil, Alzheimer Disease, Aged, 80 and over, Aged

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) assesses everyday memory by means of tasks which mimic daily challenges. The objective was to examine the validity of the Brazilian version of the RBMT to detect cognitive decline. 195 older adults were diagnosed as normal controls (NC) or with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or Alzheimer's disease (AD) by a multidisciplinary team, after participants completed clinical and neuropsychological protocols. Cronbach's alpha was high for the total sample for the RBMT profile (PS) and screening scores (SS) (PS = 0.91, SS = 0.87) and for the AD group (PS = 0.84, SS = 0.85), and moderate for the MCI (PS = 0.62, SS = 0.55) and NC (PS = 0.62, SS = 0.60) groups. RBMT total scores, Appointment, Pictures, Immediate and Delayed Story, Immediate and Delayed Route, Delayed Message and Date contributed to differentiate NC from MCI. ROC curve analyses indicated high accuracy to differentiate NC from AD patients, and, moderate accuracy to differentiate NC from MCI. The Brazilian version of the RBMT seems to be an appropriate instrument to identify memory decline in Brazilian older adults.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      Journal
      10.1017/S1041610210001055
      20598195

      Comments

      Comment on this article