Cognitive Effects Of A Cognitive Stimulation Programme On Trained Domains in Older Adults With Subjective Memory Complaints: Randomised Controlled Trial Part 2
Nov 30, 2023
The tools used in the inclusion criteria are as follows:
Goldberg Anxiety Subscale
Anxiety was measured by the Goldberg anxiety subscale, which is a subscale of the Goldberg questionnaire, with nine dichotomous response items (yes/no). An independent score is awarded for each scale, with one point for an affirmative answer. The cut-off value is ≥4 for the anxiety subscale, which indicates “probable anxiety”. This scale has a specificity of 91% and a sensitivity of 86% [43].
Yesavage Geriatric Depression Scale 15-point Version
Level of depression was evaluated with the GDS-15, which is considered suitable for seniors in the community. Scores range from 0–15, with a total score > 5 interpreted as “probable depression”. Scoring higher than 12 would be indicative of severe depression. In older people, sensitivity is 71.8% and specificity is 78.2%, for a cut-off of 5 points [44].
The Barthel Index
The BI assesses the level of independence of 10 basic ADL (BADL) [45]. The maximum score for the BI is 100, where scores higher than 60 denote low dependence with ADL and scores below 20 demonstrate high dependence with ADL. Internal consistency was 0.90, with an inter-observer reliability Kappa index of between 0.47 and 1.00 and inter-observer reliability Kappa index between 0.84 and 0.97. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90–0.9228 for the internal consistency evaluation [46].
The Lawton–Brody Scale
The L–B scale assesses degree of autonomy in eight IADL necessary for living independently in the community [45]. Scores range from 0–8 points. A score of 3 or less would be considered indicative of moderate dependence. Its sensitivity is 0.57 and its specificity is 0.92 [47]. The minimal important change of the Lawton IADL scale is around half a point. The certainty of this conclusion is reduced by variation across calculation methods [48].
The assessment process was carried out by eight occupational therapists who were blinded after receiving the corresponding training to ensure uniform application of the assessment instruments.
2.5. Sample Size
This study is a secondary analysis of aggregated data from two studies in which the sample size was already calculated and in which randomisation was conducted. The data of the present study are the result of merging these two previous studies, in which only participants with SMC have been selected. Both studies were approved by the Clinical Trials Ethics Committee of Aragon (CEICA) and registered in the clinical trials (see Ethical Considerations section). All patients in both studies signed an informed consent form and were given an information sheet.
