【摘要】 评价阿尔茨海默病评定量表 (Alzheimer’sDiseaseAssessmentScale ,ADAS)中文译本的效度和信度。方法 :选取 2 0例符合NINCDS ADRDA诊断标准的很可能AD患者为被试 ,两名评定者盲法评定 ,通过评定者间一致性评价量表信度。进行ADAS、MMSE、GDS、ADL和BlessedRoth量表评分 ,通过相关分析考察量表效度。ADAS各条目评分进行相关分析 ,以评价量表内部结构的相关性。结果 :量表各条目的评定者间一致性kappa值均在 0 .75以上 (p <0 .0 5)。ADAS认知部分各条目评分彼此呈高度正相关 (p <0 .0 5) ,非认知部分多数条目评分无显著相关性。不同GDS等级间认知总分、非认知总分及全量表总分存在显著差异。认知部分总分与MMSE总分呈显著负相关 (r=0 .80 3,p <0 .0 1) ,与ADL(r=0 .4 63,p <0 .0 5)及BlessedRoth痴呆量表 (r =0 .4 58,p <0 .0 5)评分均呈显著正相关。非认知部分与MMSE、ADL及Blessed Roth痴呆量表评分无显著相关。ADAS总分与MMSE总分呈显著负相关 (r= 0 .778,p <0 .0 1) ,与Blessed Roth量表 (r =0 .4 4 8,p <0 .0 1)评分呈显著正相关 ,与ADL评分无显著相关。结论 :ADAS具有较好的信度和效度 ,临床上可使用该量表评定AD严重程度。更多还原

【Abstract】 To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS). Methods: According to the criteria of NINCDS ADRDA, 20 patients diagnosed as probable cases of Alzheimer’s disease, were studied. Two raters, informed of the diagnosis and blind to each other, were asked to score the ADAS, MMSE, ADL and the Blessed Roth Rating Scale (BRRS) independently. Correlational analysis was applied for examining reliability and internal consistency. Results: For all items, the values of kappa for inter-rater reliability were above 0.75 (p<0.05). The scores of the items in the ADAS-Cog were correlated with each other significantly (p<0.01), whereas no significant correlation was found between most of the items in the ADAS-NCog. There were significant differences of the total scores of ADAS-Cog, ADAS-NCog and ADAS between subgroups with different ratings of GDS. The total score of the ADAS-Cog was negatively correlated with that of MMSE (r=0.803,p<0.01), and positively correlated with that of ADL and BRS (r=0.463,p<0.05 and r=0.458, p<0.05,respectively). The total score of ADAS was negatively correlated with that of MMSE (r=0.778, p<0.01), and positively correlated with that of BRS(r=0.448, p<0.01). Conclusion: ADAS was useful as a clinical instrument to evaluate the severity of Alzheimer’s disease.更多还原