Validation of the Algase Wandering Scale (Version 2) in a cross cultural sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the psychometric properties of an expanded version of the Algase Wandering Scale (Version 2) (AWS-V2) in a cross-cultural sample. A cross-sectional survey design was used. Study subjects were 172 English-speaking persons with dementia (PWD) from long-term care facilities in the USA, Canada, and Australia. Two or more facility staff rated each subject on the AWS-V2. Demographic and cognitive data (MMSE) were also obtained. Staff provided information on their own knowledge of the subject and of dementia. Separate factor analyses on data from two samples of raters each explained greater than 66% of the variance in AWS-V2 scores and validated four (persistent walking, navigational deficit, eloping behavior, and shadowing) of five factors in the original scale. Items added to create the AWS-V2 strengthened the shadowing subscale, failed to improve the routinized walking subscale, and added a factor, attention shifting as compared to the original AWS. Evidence for validity was found in significant correlations and ANOVAs between the AWS-V2 and most subscales with a single item indicator of wandering and with the MMSE. Evidence of reliability was shown by internal consistency of the AWS-V2 (0.87, 0.88) and its subscales (range 0.88 to 0.66), with Kappa for individual items (17 of 27 greater than 0.4), and ANOVAs comparing ratings across rater groups (nurses, nurse aids, and other staff). Analyses support validity and reliability of the AWS-V2 overall and for persistent walking, spatial disorientation, and eloping behavior subscales. The AWS-V2 and its subscales are an appropriate way to measure wandering as conceptualized within the Need-driven Dementia-compromised Behavior Model in studies of English-speaking subjects. Suggestions for further strengthening the scale and for extending its use to clinical applications are described.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".