Introduction
Methods
Data sources
Selection criteria
Results
Mild cognitive impairment sample characteristics
Study types and/or designs
Assessment instruments used
Abbreviation
|
Full instrument name
|
Type
|
IADL domains
|
Psychometric properties
|
---|---|---|---|---|
Performance-based assessment instruments
| ||||
DAFS [62] | Direct Assessment of Functional Status | P | 6 domains: time orientation, communication, financial skills, shopping, grooming, eating | Good interrater and test–retest reliability, good evidence of discriminant and convergent validity, ceiling effects for time orientation, identify change and shopping |
DOT [34] | Day-Out Task | P | 8 tasks to prepare a day out (including packing a picnic basket, planning a bus route, gathering correct change for bus ride) | Interrater reliability: 96.92% agreement |
EPT [63] | Everyday Problems Test | P | Problem solving related to medication use, meal preparation, telephone use, shopping, financial management, household management, transportation | Test–retest reliability: r = 0.93, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) = 0.88. Validity: significant correlations with direct observation of older adults’ performance of everyday tasks (r = 0.67), older adults’ self-reports (r = 0.23) and dementia patients’ self-reports (r = 0.36) |
FCI [64] | Financial Capacity Instrument | P | 7 domains: basic monetary skills, financial conceptual knowledge, cash transactions, checkbook management, bank statement management, financial judgment, bill payment | For all subdomains: test–retest reliability r > 0.8, internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) > 0.8 |
META [53] | Management of Everyday Technology Assessment | P | 10 technology-related items (including performing actions in a logical sequence, turning a button) | Acceptable person response validity |
TFLS [65] | Texas Functional Living Scale | P | 5 domains: time/orientation, money, communication, dressing, memory | Test–retest reliability: r = 0.93 in AD sample, test–retest reliability in control group: r = 0.52, strong correlation with MMSE scores (r = 0.92) |
TIADL [66] | Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living | P | 5 domains: shopping, finances, medication, telephone use, locating information on food labels (speed and accuracy) | Test–retest reliability: r = 0.85 |
UAB-DA [67] | University of Alabama at Birmingham Driving Assessment | P | Real-world, standardized route: lane control, gap judgment, turning, maintaining proper speed, stopping distance, signaling, obeying traffic signs, preturn and postturn position, spacing, steer steadiness, precrossing and postcrossing position, and proper scanning of driving space | Not reported |
UCSD-UPSA [68] | University of California San Diego Performance-Based Skills Assessment | P | 5 domains: household chores, communication, finances, transportation, planning recreational activities | Test–retest reliability: r = 0.92 |
VAPS [52] | Virtual Action Planning Supermarket | P | Virtual reality supermarket, 8 parameters: total distance, total time in seconds, number of items purchased, number of correct actions, number of incorrect actions, number of pauses, combined duration of pauses, time to pay | Validity (correlations between VAPS performance and executive functions): r = −0.40 to r = −0.63 |
Self-report and informant-report rating instruments
| ||||
ADCS-ADL [69] | Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living Inventory | I | 23 items (including shopping, hobbies, personal appliances; both IADL and BADL) | Moderate to good retest reliability, floor effects for financial abilities in individuals with dementia |
ADCS-MCI-ADL-18 [69] | 18-item Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living Inventory adapted for patients with mild cognitive impairment | I | 18 items (including shopping, hobbies, personal appliances; both IADL and BADL) | Not reported |
ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 [45] | 24-item Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study/Activities of Daily Living scale adapted for patients with mild cognitive impairment | I | 24 items (original ADCS-MCI-ADL scale plus 6 MCI-specific items, including driving a car, organizing medication) | Not reported |
ADL-PI [70] | Activities of Daily Living-Prevention Instrument | I | 15 items (including completing and/or organizing activities, taking medication, using telephone, finding belongings, managing finances) | Retest reliability: from r = 0.69 to r = 0.74 |
Bayer-ADL [71] | Bayer Activities of Daily Living Scale | I | 25 items (2 BADL items, 18 specific IADL items, 5 items for cognitive functions) | Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α > 0.98) |
DAD [72] | Disability Assessment for Dementia | I | IADL part with 23 items (meal preparation, telephoning, going on an outing, finances, medication, housework, leisure) and BADL part with 17 items | Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.96), interrater reliability (ICC = 0.95), test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.96) |
DAD-6 [40] | 6-item Disability Assessment for Dementia | I | 6 items: meal preparation, telephoning, going on an outing, handling finances and correspondence, medication, leisure, housework | Not reported |
DHQ [59] | Driving Habits Questionnaire | S | Driving difficulty in 8 different situations and driving frequency | Retest reliability: from r = 0.65 to r = 0.86 for the 8 situations |
ETUQ [56] | Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire | S | 86 items (including questions about technology at home and outside, communication) | Acceptable levels of internal scale validity, unidimensionality, and person response validity |
FAQ [73] | Functional Activities Questionnaire | S/I | 10 items (including finances, shopping, remembering appointments, playing games, preparing a meal, traveling, remembering appointments) | Not reported |
FC-ADL [74] | Functional Capacities for Activities of Daily Living | I | 50 statements reflecting possible IADL difficulties | Not reported |
4-IADL [27] | 4 IADL scale items chosen from Lawton and Brody’s Instrumental Activities of Daily Living [5] | S | 4 items: telephone use, finances, medication, transportation | Not reported |
9-IADL [58] | 9-item IADL scale | I | 9 items: medication responsibility, ability to buy food, to prepare meals, to keep the home clean, to use the telephone, to handle finances, to use public transportation, to orientate oneself outside, to visit people | Not reported |
IQCODE [75] | Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly | I | 26 items (including finances, communication, memory, household appliances) | Cronbach’s α = 0.96, correlation with MMSE (r = 0.74) |
KI-IADL [34] | Knowledgeable Informant report about Instrumental Activities of Daily Living | I | 50 questions assessing 10 IADL domains: using the phone, traveling, shopping, preparing meals, household activities, conversation, organization, social functioning, medication management, financial management | Not reported |
L&B IADL [5] | Lawton and Brody’s Instrumental Activities of Daily Living | S/I | 8 items: shopping, grooming, medication responsibility, handling finances, mode of transportation, telephone use, food preparation, telephone use | Interrater correlation: r = 0.85 |
ROIL [76] | Record of Independent Living | I | 37 items assessing 3 domains: activities, communication, behavior | Not reported |
SR-IADL [77] | Self-report Instrumental Activities of Daily Living | S | Items include handling money, keeping appointments, planning meals (IADL performance and difficulty) | Reliability: r = 0.74 |
S-IADL [78] | Seoul-Instrumental Activities of Daily Living | S/I | 15 items (including ability to prepare a balanced meal, remember appointments, ability to keep financial records, remember to take medication) | Good reliability and validity |
SIB-R [79] | Scales of Independent Behavior–Revised | S/I | 13 subscales organized into 4 adaptive behavior clusters: (1) social interaction and communication, (2) personal living, (3) community living, (4) motor skills | Self-report: internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) = 0.92, test–retest reliability: r = 0.80 |
Informant-report: internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) = 0.95, test–retest reliability: r = 0.84 | ||||
T-ADLQ [54] | Technology–Activities of Daily Living Questionnaire | I | 7 subscales (self-care, household care, employment and recreation, shopping and money, travel, communication, technology) | Cronbach’s α = 0.86; validity: significant correlations with the MMSE (r = −0.70) |
Mild cognitive impairment subtypes
Instrumental activities of living in patients with mild cognitive impairment
Author
|
Year
|
MCI criteria
|
Number of subjects
|
Mean age, yr (SD)
|
Mean MMSE score (SD)
|
IADL measures used
|
Results and effect sizes (Cohen’s
d
)
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance-based instruments
| |||||||
Binegar et al. [57] | 2009 | Petersen | 30 MCI | MCI 72.8 (7.9) | MCI 27.3 (2.2) | TFLS | Total score: MCI < NC (d = 0.61); subscales: significant for memory subscale (d = 0.85), but not for time/orientation, money, communication, dressing |
Clinical | 30 NC | NC 73.7 (6.9) | NC 29.2 (1.0) | ||||
ns | significant | ||||||
Giovannetti et al. [24] | 2008 | Petersen | 25 MCI | MCI 72.2 (6.7) | MCI 27.6 (1.4) | NAT | Total score: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.05, MCI versus AD: d = 1.46 Error score: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.74, MCI versus AD: d = 1.78 |
1.5 SD below | 18 NC | NC 73.1 (3.2) | NC 28.5 (1.0) | ||||
MMSE ≥25 | 25 mild AD | AD 73.6 (3.8) | AD 22.4 (2.8) | ||||
ns | (NC = MCI) > AD, P < 0.05 | ||||||
Goldberg et al. [25] | 2010 | Petersen | 26 MCI | MCI 77.5 (7.1) | MCI 26.1 (2.3) | UCSD-UPSA | UCSD-UPSA: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.86, MCI versus AD: d = 1.81 ADCS-ADL: (NC = MCI ) > AD; MCI versus AD: d = 1.81 |
1.5 SD below | 50 NC | NC 68.8 (9.9) | NC 28.5 (1.5) | Additional informant-report: ADCS-ADL (NC: self-report) | |||
CDR 0.5 | 22 AD | AD 78.4 (5.4) | AD 20.3 (3.4) | ||||
MMSE ≥24 | |||||||
Pereira [60] | 2010 | Petersen | 31 MCI | MCI 72.6 (7.0) | MCI 27.3 (2.3) | DAFS | DAFS total score NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.58, MCI versus AD: d = 2.18 DAFS subdomains: NC > MCI for finances and shopping, but not time orientation, communication, grooming, eating, which were worse only in AD; IQCODE total score: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.00, MCI versus AD: d = 0.77 |
Clinical | 32 NC | NC 71.6 (5.6) | NC 28.8 (1.5) | ||||
26 AD | AD 77.9 (6.0) | AD 19.5 (5.5) | Additional informant-report: IQCODE | ||||
AD > (MCI/NC) | AD < (MCI = NC) | ||||||
Schmitter-Edgecombe et al. [34] | 2012 | Petersen | 38 MCI | MCI 70.5 (8.6) | Not reported | DOT | DOT: MCI < NC for completion time (d = 0.60) and accuracy (d = 0.61) |
1.5 SD below | 38 NC | NC 69.3 (7.9) | Additional informant-report: KI-ADL | KI-ADL: MCI < NC (d = 0.50) | |||
ns | |||||||
Wadley et al. [50] | 2008 | Petersen | 50 MCI | MCI 70.0 (7.9) | Not reported | Timed IADL | MCI = NC for accuracy |
Clinical | 59 NC | NC 67.8 (7.1) | MCI < NC for speed (d = 0.75), significant subdomains telephone (d = 0.56), grocery (d = 0.75), medication (d = 0.51), nutrition information (d = 0.52) | ||||
ns | |||||||
Informant-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Ahn et al. [41]. | 2009 | Petersen/Winblad | 66 MCI | MCI 70.8 (7.3) | MCI 24.8 (3.1) | Seoul-IADL | MCI < NC (d = 1.62) |
1.5 SD below | 61 NC | NC 64.4 (5.6) | NC 27.6 (1.4) | ||||
CDR 0.5 | significant | ||||||
Boeve et al. [42] | 2003 | Petersen | 13 MCI | MCI 94.3 (2.6) | MCI 26.8 (1.6) | ROIL | MCI = NC, MCI > dementia (d = 2.93) |
Clinical | 56 NC | NC 93.8 (2.5) | NC 27.9 (2.3) | ||||
42 Dementia | Dementia 94.8 (2.6) | Dementia 18.6 (5.0) | |||||
ns | AD < (MCI = NC) | ||||||
Brown et al. [15] | 2011 | Petersen | 394 MCI | MCI 74.9 (7.4) | MCI 27.0 (1.8) | FAQ (NC: self-report) | Severity of deficits: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.04, MCI versus AD: d = 1.71 Number of deficits: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.28, MCI versus AD: d = 1.62 |
1.5 SD below | 229 NC | NC 75.9 (5.0) | NC 29.1 (1.0) | ||||
CDR 0.5 | 193 AD | AD 75.3 (7.5) | AD 23.3 (2.1) | ||||
MMSE ≥24 | ns | significant | |||||
Jefferson et al. [43] | 2008 | Petersen/Winblad | 38 MCI | MCI 74.6 (7.5) | MCI 28.0 (1.7) | L&B IADL | L&B IADL: MCI = NC, FC-ADL: MCI < NC (d = 0.84) |
Clinical | 39 NC | NCI 72.4 (5.5) | NC 29.3 (0.9) | FC-ADL | |||
ns | significant | ||||||
Mariani et al. [44] | 2008 | Petersen/Winblad | 132 MCI | MCI 76.1 (5.8) | MCI 25.7 (1.6) | L&B IADL (MCI: informant-report, NC: self-report) | MCI < NC (d = 0.29) |
below normality cutoff | 249 NC | NC 72.2 (7.5) | NC 28.1 (1.2) | ||||
significant | significant | ||||||
Pedrosa et al. [45] | 2010 | Petersen/Winblad | 30 MCI | MCI 75.7 (6.4) | MCI 24.4 (3.3) | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18 ADCS-MCI-ADL-24 L&B-IADL | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.39, MCI versus AD: d = 2.27 ADCS-MCI-ADL-24: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.67, MCI versus AD: d = 2.33 L&B IADL: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 2.0, MCI versus AD: d = 2.89 |
1 SD below | 31 NC | NC 72.2 (8.0) | NC 27.7 (3.0) | ||||
33 AD | AD 76.1 (7.5) | AD 16.5 (5.2) | |||||
Perneczky et al. [47] | 2006 | Petersen/Winblad | 48 MCI | MCI 69.2 (8.3) | MCI 26.5 (2.3) | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18 Bayer-ADL IQCODE | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18: MCI < NC (d = 1.98) Bayer-ADL: MCI < NC (d = 1.95) IQCODE: MCI < NC (d = 1.09) |
1 SD below | 42 NC | NC 66.7 (9.3) | NC 29.3 (0.7) | ||||
CDR 0.5 | ns | significant | |||||
Perneczky et al. [46] | 2006 | Petersen/Winblad | 45 MCI | MCI 69.2 (8.3) | MCI 26.9 (1.4) | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18 Bayer-ADL | ADCS-MCI-ADL-18: MCI < NC (d = 1.89) Bayer-ADL: MCI < NC (d = 2.44) |
1 SD below | 30 NC | NC 66.7 (9.3) | NC 29.3 (0.7) | ||||
CDR 0.5 | ns | ||||||
Reppermund et al. [29] | 2011 | Petersen | 293 MCI | MCI 78.8 (4.7) | MCI 28.0 (1.5) | Bayer-ADL | Bayer-ADL total: MCI < NC (d = 0.32) |
1.5 SD below | 469 NC | NC 78.3 (4.7) | NC 28.8 (1.2) | Bayer-ADL high cognitive demand: MCI < NC (d = 0.40) | |||
ns | |||||||
Bayer-ADL low cognitive demand: MCI = NC | |||||||
Reppermund et al. [28] | 2013 | Petersen | 227 MCI | MCI 78.6 (4.4) | MCI 28.3 (1.4) | Bayer-ADL | Bayer-ADL total: MCI < NC (d = 0.39) |
1.5 SD below | 375 NC | NC 77.9 (4.6) | NC 28.9 (1.2) | Bayer-ADL high cognitive demand: MCI < NC (d = 0.40) Bayer-ADL low cognitive demand: MCI < NC (d = 0.27), IADL performance at baseline predicted conversion to dementia at 2-year follow-up | |||
ns | significant | ||||||
Self-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Kim et al. [36] | 2009 | Winblad | 255 MCI | MCI 72.0 (6.0) | MCI 23.1 (4.5) | Seoul-IADL | MCI < NC (d = 0.27) |
1 SD below | 311 NC | NC 70.7 (6.0) | NC 26.5 (3.3) | ||||
significant | significant | ||||||
Peres et al. [27] | 2006 | Petersen | 285 MCI | Total sample: 80.8 (5.6) | Not reported | 4-IADL | NC > MCI > dementia |
1.5 SD below | 828 NC | ||||||
149 dementia | |||||||
Comparison of MCI subtypes: informant-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Aretouli et al. [23] | 2010 | Petersen | 124 MCI | MCI 76.3 (7.5) | MCI 28.2 (1.3) | ADL-PI IQCODE | ADL-PI: MCI < NC, P < 0.001; all MCI subgroups < NC, P < 0.001, md = sd; am = nonam IQCODE: MCI < NC, P < 0.001; true for all subgroups; multiple > single, am = nonam |
1.5 SD below | (36 asMCI | NC 72.4 (7.3) | NC 29.3 (0.9) | ||||
CDR 0.5 | 45 amMCI | significant | significant | ||||
26 nasMCI | |||||||
17 namMCI) | |||||||
68 NC | |||||||
Luck et al. [58] | 2011 | Winblad | 161 MCI | MCI 81.9 (5.0) | Not reported | 9 IADL items (Schneekloth and Potthoff [80]) | MCI < NC (aMCI = naMCI; aMCI < NC (d = 0.17), naMCI = NC) MCI + IADL deficits: higher risk of conversion to dementia MCI + IADL: 47.4% versus MCI-IADL: 31.4%; NC + IADL: 26.7% versus NC-IADL: 8.0% |
1 SD below | (36 asMCI | (aMCI 81.6 (4.8), | |||||
42 amMCI | naMCI 82.2 (5.2)) | ||||||
60 nasMCI | NC 81.2 (4.7) | ||||||
23 namMCI) | ns | ||||||
723 NC | |||||||
de Rotrou [40] | 2012 | Petersen | 53 MCI | MCI 78.6 (7.3) | MCI 26.2 (2.2) | DAD-6 | NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.29, MCI versus AD: d = 1.66 NC > sdMCI (d = 1.59), sdMCI > mdMCI (d = 1.37) |
Clinical | (29 sdMCI | NC 80.9 (4.2) | NC 29.1 (1.0) | ||||
24mdMCI) | Dementia 80.6 (6.2) | Dementia 25.5 (1.8) | |||||
55 NC | ns | All significant | |||||
31 Dementia | |||||||
Tam et al. [48] | 2007 | Petersen/Winblad | 54 asMCI | asMCI 79.3 (6.1) | asMCI 25.4 (3.0) | DAD | IADL subscale: (NC = asMCI) > amMCI > AD; amMCI versus NC: d = 0.98, asMCI versus amMCI: d = 0.80, asMCI versus AD: d = 2.93, amMCI versus AD: d = 1.71 |
CDR 0.5 | 93 amMCI | amMCI 80.1 (6.5) | amMCI 22.3 (3.1) | ||||
1 SD below | 78 NC | NC 77.1 (5.1) | NC 27.2 (2.1) | ||||
85 AD | AD 84.5 (5.9) | AD 17.9 (3.2) | |||||
Teng et al. [31] | 2010 | Petersen | 1108 MCI | as 77.0 (9.2) | as 27.8 (1.8) | FAQ | NC > asMCI/amMCI/nasMCI; asMCI = amMCI, nasMCI = namMCI |
MMSE ≥24 | (532 asMCI | am 75.3 (8.5) | am 27.4 (1.8) | ||||
340 amMCI | nas 74.1 (8.6) | nas 28.2 (1.7) | |||||
162 nasMCI | nam 73.0 (6.8) | nam 27.8 (1.5) | |||||
74 namMCI) | NC 74.8 (9.1) | NC 29.0 (1.2) | |||||
3,036 NC | significant | ||||||
Yeh et al. [33] | 2011 | Petersen | 56 asMCI | asMCI 77.5 (6.7) | asMCI 26.6 (1.6) | DAD | NC > MCI (as = am) > AD; asMCI versus NC: d = 0.9, amMCI versus NC: d = 1.06, asMCI versus AD: d = 2.23, amMCI versus AD: d = 1.9 |
1 SD below | 94 amMCI | amMCI 78.9 (5.8) | amMCI 25.8 (1.6) | ||||
MMSE ≥24 | 64 NC | NC 76.5 (6.6) | NC 28.5 (1.3) | ||||
102 AD | AD 79.6 (6.1) | AD 20.9 (3.1) | |||||
Comparison of MCI subtypes: self-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Wadley et al. [61] | 2007 | Petersen/Winblad | 84 aMCI | aMCI 77.0 (7.0) | aMCI 26.0 (1.9) | IADL (Home Care questionnaire) | IADL performance: aMCI/mdMCI < NC, naMCI = NC; aMCI versus NC: d = 0.23, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.31; aMCI < naMCI: d = 0.23 IADL difficulty: all MCI subgroups < NC; aMCI versus NC: d = 0.57, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.27, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.57; aMCI < naMCI: d = 0.23 |
1.5 SD below | 171 naMCI | naMCI 76.5 (6.2) | naMCI 26.2 (2.1) | ||||
89 mdMCI | mdMCI 78.8 (6.6) | mdMCI 25.1 (1.8) | |||||
2,110 NC | NC 72.9 (5.4) | NC 27.6 (1.8) | |||||
significant | |||||||
Comparison of MCI subtypes and all three types of instruments
| |||||||
Burton et al. [37] | 2009 | Petersen/Winblad | 6 asMCI | asMCI 79.5 (5.7) | asMCI 26.8 (2.5) | Performance-based: EPT | Self-report: SIB-R: NC > mdMCI (d = 0.71), sdMCI > mdMCI (d = 0.45), L&B: MCI = NC; L&B IADL: MCI = NC Informant-report SIB-R: NC > sdMCI (d = 0.46), NC > mdMCI (d = 0.51); L&B IADL: MCI = NC EPT: NC > sdMCI > mdMCI; sdMCI versus NC: d = 0.50, sdMCI versus mdMCI: d = 1.54 |
1 SD below | 39 nasMCI | nasMCI 77.5 (5.6) | nasMCI 28.7 (1.3) | Self-report: L&B IADL, SIB-R; Informant-report: L&B IADL, SIB-R | |||
19 amMCI | amMCI 82.0 (5.0) | amMCI 28.2 (1.3) | |||||
28 namMCI | namMCI 79.6 (4.9) | namMCI 28.7 (1.1) | |||||
158 NC | NC 73.6 (4.7) | NC 28.9 (1.2) |
Author
|
Year
|
MCI criteria
|
Number of subjects
|
Mean age, yr (SD)
|
Mean MMSE score (SD)
|
IADL measures
|
Results and effect sizes (Cohen’s
d
)
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Financial capacity: performance-based instruments
| |||||||
Griffith et al. [26] | 2003 | Petersen | 21 MCI | MCI 68.1 (8.8) | MCI 28.4 (1.2) | FCI | NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.14, MCI versus AD d = 1.21 |
CDR 0.5 | 21 NC | NC 66.7 (7.2) | NC 29.3 (1.0) | ||||
22 AD | AD 71.5 (9.2), ns | AD 24.1 (2.6) | |||||
Sherod et al. [30] | 2009 | Petersen | 113 MCI | MCI 70.3 (7.4) | MCI 28.1 (1.9) | FCI | NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.03, MCI versus AD: d = 0.87 |
1.5 SD below | 85 NC | NC 67.2 (8.2) | NC 29.4 (0.9) | ||||
43 AD | AD 73.8 (8.5) | AD 24.6 (2.9) | |||||
all significant | |||||||
Triebel et al. [32] | 2009 | Petersen | 87 MCI | ADcon 74.4 (6.0) | ADcon 27.0 (1.9) | FCI | NC > MCI; ADnon versus NC: d = 0.83, ADcon versus NC: d = 1.83 |
1.5 SD below | (25 ADcon, 62 ADnon) | ADnon 68.5 (7.5) | ADnon 28.6 (1.4) | ||||
76 NC | NC 66.7 (8.5) | NC 29.4 (1.0) | |||||
Management of everyday technology: performance-based instruments
| |||||||
Malinowsky et al. [53] | 2010 | Petersen | 33 MCI | MCI 70.5 (8.4) | MCI 27.5 (1.9) | META | NC > MCI > AD, MCI versus NC: d = 0.66, MCI versus AD: d = 1.23 |
45 NC | NC 73.2 (9.7) | NC 29.3 (1.1) | |||||
38 AD | AD 75.3 (9.1) | AD 23.5 (3.3) | |||||
Malinowsky et al. [38] | 2012 | Petersen/Winblad | 33 MCI | MCI 70.8 (8.6) | MCI 27.5 (1.9) | META | NC > AD, MCI = NC |
42 NC | NC 72.6 (9.7) | NC 29.4 (1.0) | |||||
35 AD | AD 75.5 (9.2) | AD 23.5 (3.4) | |||||
ns | |||||||
Management of everyday technology: informant-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Munoz-Neira et al. [54] | 2012 | Winblad | 21 MCI | MCI 71.3 (9.1) | MCI 26.1 (2.5) | T-ADLQ | Total score: NC > MCI > AD, MCI versus NC: d = 0.62, MCI versus AD: d = 1.47 Subscales: NC > MCI on 2 subscales: employment and recreation: d = 0.54, travel: d = 0.55 |
44 NC | NC 74.1 (7.3) | NC 27.8 (2.3) | |||||
63 AD | AD 73.9 (8.7) | AD 17.9 (5.8) | |||||
Management of everyday technology: self-report rating instruments
| |||||||
Nygård et al. [55] | 2011 | Petersen/Winblad | 37 MCI | MCI 67.0 (7.47) | MCI 27.5 (2.1) | ETUQ (support of proxy possible for patients with AD and MCI) | Perceived relevance of ET: NC > MCI > AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.51, MCI versus AD: d = 1.26 |
44 NC | NC 69.0 (9.58) | NC 29.1 (1.1) | |||||
37 AD | AD 72.0 (8.92) | AD 25.4 (2.8) | |||||
ns | ns | Perceived difficulty of ET: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.82, MCI versus AD: d = 1.26 | |||||
Rosenberg et al. [56] | 2009 | Petersen | 30 MCI | MCI 74.0 (6.9) | MCI 27.0 (2.4) | ETUQ (support of proxy possible for patients with AD and MCI) | Perceived relevance of ET: NC > MCI = AD; MCI versus NC: d = 1.66 |
93 NC | NC 74.0 (7.6) | NC 28.0 (1.7) | Perceived difficulty of ET: NC < MCI < AD; MCI versus NC: d = 0.59, MCI versus AD: d = 1.00 | ||||
34 AD | AD 73.0 (8.4) | AD 24.0 (3.3) | |||||
ns | |||||||
Driving capacity: performance-based instruments
| |||||||
Wadley et al. [51] | 2009 | Petersen | 46 MCI | MCI 71.3 (7.8) | Not reported | UAB-DA | MCI < NC, d = 0.46 |
59 NC | NC 67.1 (6.7) | ||||||
significant | |||||||
Driving capacity: self-report rating instruments
| |||||||
O’Connor et al. [59] | 2010 | Petersen/Winblad | 304 MCI | MCI 76.8 (6.5) | Not reported | DHQ | (aMCI = naMCI = mdMCI) < NC (driving frequency, driving difficulty, driving space) differed at baseline and faster rates of decline Driving frequency: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.31, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.24, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.14 Driving difficulty: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.35, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.36, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.45 Driving space: aMCI versus NC: d = 0.42, naMCI versus NC: d = 0.51, mdMCI versus NC: d = 0.43 |
1.5 SD below | (82 aMCI | NC 72.6 (5.3) | |||||
140 naMCI | significant | ||||||
82 mdMCI) | |||||||
2,051 NC | |||||||
Shopping capacity: performance-based instruments
| |||||||
Werner et al. [52] | 2009 | Petersen | 30 MCI | MCI 69.3 (7.4) | MCI 27.5 (1.3) | VAPS | MCI < NC; significant subscales: distance d = 0.29, trajectory duration: d = 1.16, duration of pauses: d = 0.89 |
30 NC | NC 69.6 (7.3) | NC 29.4 (0.7) | |||||
ns | significant |