Cargando…

Reliability and validity of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in community-dwelling elderly

INTRODUCTION: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used screening instrument in neuropsychological assessment and is a brief, individually administered measure. The present study aims to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cheng, Yan, Wu, Wenyuan, Wang, Jiaqi, Feng, Wei, Wu, Xiangwei, Li, Chunbo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Termedia Publishing House 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3258798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22291831
http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2011.25561
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used screening instrument in neuropsychological assessment and is a brief, individually administered measure. The present study aims to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the RBANS in community-dwelling elderly. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All subjects come from the community-dwelling elderly in Shanghai, China. They completed a questionnaire concerning demographic information, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and the Chinese version of the RBANS. To test for internal consistency, Cronbach's α was calculated for all six RBANS indices. Correlations between each of the RBANS and MMSE subtests were conducted to measure the concurrent validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the construct validity. RESULTS: The final sample of participants included 236 community-dwelling elderly. The mean total score on the RBANS was 86.02 (±14.19). The RBANS total score showed strong internal consistency (r = 0.806), and the coefficient α value for each of the RBANS scales ranged from 0.142 to 0.727. The total RBANS score was highly correlated with that of the MMSE (r = 0.594, p<0.001), and the RBANS subtests also demonstrated strong correlations with most of the MMSE subtests. The results of the CFA indicated an acceptable fit between the Chinese version of the RBANS and the original. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the RBANS had relatively good reliability and validity in a community-dwelling elderly sample. It may be a useful screening instrument for conducting cognitive assessments in community-dwelling elderly.