We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the above mentioned article by Radakovic et al., a typological error has been found in the Results section under the subheading ‘Systematic review’. At the beginning of the second paragraph, the number ‘166’ should read ‘116’.
There are several scales used to detect apathy in disease populations. Since apathy is a prevalent symptom in many neurodegenerative diseases, this is an especially important context in which to identify and compare scales.
Aims:
To provide an overview of apathy scales validated in generic and specific neurodegenerative disease populations, compare validation studies’ methodological quality and the psychometric properties of the validated apathy scales.
Methods:
A systematic review of literature was conducted of articles published between 1980 and 2013. The final articles selected for review were rated on methodological quality and the psychometric properties of the scales used were interpreted.
Results:
Sixteen articles validating apathy scales were included in the review, five in a generic neurodegenerative sample and eleven in specific neurodegenerative samples. The methodological quality of specific studies varied from poor to excellent. The highest quality, which had psychometrically favorable scales, were the dementia apathy interview and rating (DAIR) and the apathy evaluation scale-clinical version (AES-C) in Alzheimer's disease and the Lille apathy rating scale (LARS) in Parkinson's disease. Generic neurodegenerative disease validation studies were of average methodological quality and yielded inconsistent psychometric properties.
Conclusions:
Several instruments can be recommended for use in some specific neurodegenerative diseases. Other instruments should either be validated or developed to assess apathy in more generic populations.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.