The Erlangen test of activities of daily living in persons with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment (ETAM) – an extended validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) is a central marker in the diagnosis and progression of the dementia syndrome. ADLs can be identified as basic ADLs (BADLs), which are fairly easy to perform, or instrumental ADLs (IADLs), which involve more complex activities. Presently, the only performance-based assessment of IADL capabilities in persons with cognitive impairment is the Erlangen Test of Activities of Daily Living in Persons with Mild Dementia or Mild Cognitive Impairment (ETAM). The aim of the present study was to revalidate the ETAM in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia and to analyze its application to persons with moderate dementia. METHODS: We used baseline data from a cluster randomized controlled trial involving a sample of 443 users of 34 day-care centers in Germany. We analyzed groups of persons with MCI, mild dementia, and moderate dementia, categorized on the basis of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). An item analysis was performed, and new discriminant validities were calculated. We computed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the postulated theoretical model of the ETAM with all six items loading on a single IADL factor. This was the first time that the ETAM's sensitivity to change was analyzed after a time period of 6 months. RESULTS: The overall sample scored on average 17.3 points (SD = 7.2) on the ETAM (range: 0-30 points). Persons with MCI scored on average 23.2 points, persons with mild dementia scored 18.4 points, and persons with moderate dementia scored 12.9 points, p < .001 (ANOVA). The item analysis yielded good difficulty indices and discrimination powers. The CFA indicated a good fit between the model and the observed data. After 6 months, both the ETAM score at baseline and the change in MMSE score (t0-t1) were significant predictors of the ETAM score at t1. CONCLUSIONS: The ETAM is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing IADL capabilities in persons with MCI or mild dementia. It is sensitive to changes in cognitive abilities. The test parameters confirm its application to persons with moderate dementia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Identifier: ISRCTN16412551 (Registration date: 30 July 2014, registered retrospectively).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".