Functional Disabilities Profile of Chinese Elderly People with Alzheimer’s Disease – A Validation Study on the Chinese Version of the Disability Assessment for Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the validity and applicability of the Chinese version of the Disability Assessment for Dementia (CDAD) in the Chinese elderly population. The original English version was translated and modified to a 47-item scale to suit the societal and cultural background of the Chinese population. The CDAD was administered to 169 community-residing Chinese elderly people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.91), excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation, ICC=0.99) and excellent interrater reliability (ICC=0.98). The functional disabilities profile of the same sample was examined. The CDAD had a high negative correlation with the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS; Spearman's rho=-0.89, p<0.001). ANOVA and post hoc comparisons showed there were significant differences in the mean CDAD scores across different GDS stages. To study the construct validity, the CDAD was administered concurrently with several instruments. The Instrumental Activities of Daily Living subscore of the CDAD had a high correlation with the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale (r=0.94,p<0.001), and the Activities of Daily Living subscore of the CDAD had a high correlation with the Modified Barthel Index (r=0.82, p<0.001). A moderate correlation (r=0.60, p<0.001) with the Cantonese version of the Mini Mental State Examination was also found. Analysis of the relationship with sociodemographic factors indicated that the CDAD was not correlated with gender and education, and that the correlation with age was low. The CDAD was shown to be a reliable and valid instrument in assessing the functional disabilities of community-residing elderly subjects with AD in the Chinese population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".