The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0552-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Sharon K. Inouye and Richard N. Jones contributed equally to this work.
This study aimed to describe the level of agreement of three commonly used delirium instruments: the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), and Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S).
We used data from a prospective clinical research study, in which a team of trained lay interviewers administered each instrument along with supporting interview and cognitive assessments in the same group of patients daily while in the hospital (N = 352). We used item response theory methods to co-calibrate the instruments.
The latent traits underlying the three measures, capturing the severity of a delirium assessment, had a high degree of correlation (r’s > .82). Unidimensional factor models fit well, facilitating co-calibration of the instruments. Across instruments, the less intense symptoms were generally items reflecting cognitive impairment. Although the intensity of delirium severity for most in the sample was relatively low, many of the item thresholds for the delirium severity scales are high (i.e., in the more severe range of the latent ability distribution). This indicates that even people with severe delirium may have a low probability of endorsing the highest severity categories for many items. Co-calibration enabled us to derive crosswalks to map delirium severity scores among the delirium instruments.
These delirium instruments measure the same underlying construct of delirium severity. Relative locations of items may inform design of refined measurement instruments. Mapping of overall delirium severity scores across the delirium severity instruments enabled us to derive crosswalks, which allow scores to be translated across instruments, facilitating comparison and combination of delirium studies for integrative analysis.
Additional file 1: Table S1. Item parameter estimates from instrument-specific confirmatory factor analyses of all items (Analysis step 3). Table S2. DRS item frequencies. Table S3. MDAS item frequencies. Table S4. CAM-S item frequencies. (DOCX 26 kb)12874_2018_552_MOESM1_ESM.docx
Schmitt EM, Gallagher J, Albuquerque A, et al. Perspectives on the delirium experience and its burden: common themes among older patients, their family caregivers, and nurses. Gerontologist. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx153.
American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults. American Geriatrics Society abstracted clinical practice guideline for postoperative delirium in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(1):142–50. CrossRef
NICE. Delirium: diagnosis, prevention and management. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.
Dorans NJ, Moses TP, Eignor DR. Principles and practices of test score equating. Princeton: Educational Testing Service; 2010. ETS RR-10-29
Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1980.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (fourth edition) (DSM-IV). 4 ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
Reckase MD. Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer; 2009. CrossRef
Thissen D, Orlando M. Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, editors. Test scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2001. p. 73–140. CrossRef
Haebara T. Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Jpn Psychol Res. 1980;22(3):144–9. CrossRef
- Harmonization of delirium severity instruments: a comparison of the DRS-R-98, MDAS, and CAM-S using item response theory
Alden L. Gross
Edward R. Marcantonio
Sharon K. Inouye
Richard N. Jones
for the BASIL Study Group
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II