Instruments to Assess Social Functioning in Individuals with Dementia: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background:

Social functioning is an important parameter for the early detection and diagnosis of dementia, as well as the description of its course and the assessment of intervention effects. Therefore, valid and reliable instruments to measure social functioning in individuals with dementia are needed.

Objective:

We aimed to provide an overview of such instruments including information on feasibility and psychometric properties.

Methods:

The review is informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant literature was identified using a pre-specified search string in the databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Information on the characteristics, feasibility, and psychometric properties of the identified instruments were extracted, summarized, and discussed.

Results:

Out of 5,307 articles, 8 were selected to be included in the study, describing a total of three instruments for measuring social functioning in individuals with dementia: the Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER; dimension “social behavior”), the Socioemotional Dysfunction Scale (SDS), and the Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF-DEM). The validity of all the three instruments was overall acceptable. Reliability was high for the NOSGER scale “social behavior” and the SF-DEM. Information on the usability of the instruments tended to be scarce.

Conclusion:

There are a few valid and reliable instruments to assess social functioning in individuals with dementia. Further considerations could comprise their feasibility with regard to measuring changes in social functioning over time, in additional target groups, e.g., different types and stages of dementia, and adaptions to different languages and cultural backgrounds.

Keywords

Assessment dementia instrument measurement psychometric properties reliability social functioning systematic review validity

INTRODUCTION

Dementia is a neuropsychiatric syndrome that mai-nly occurs as a result of a degenerative disease of the brain. It is one of the most common and most severe disorders in old age and shortens the life span considerably [1]. The number of people living with dementia worldwide is constantly increasing [2]. In 2015, there were 46.8 million dementia cases [3], and the number is projected to increase to 152 million by 2050 [4]. This development will pose major challenges for public health and old age care systems in countries all over the world [5]. There is no effective treatment or cure for dementia yet. In the course of demographic changes that drive population aging, higher costs for health care systems will emerge [3]. Therefore, the importance of dementia prevention and early detection is growing.

The core symptom of dementia is acquired cog-nitive impairment that limits the independent performance of everyday functional activities. In addition to cognitive decline and functional loss, changes in so-cial functioning (SF) frequently occur in the course of dementia [6].

By showing repeated inappropriate social beha-vior—typically being unaware of it—people around individuals with dementia often withdraw from relationships with them. This reduces the individuals’ social contacts and social activities. Social behavior comprises “the readily observable interactions between an individual and other people, while “social functioning” is broader than social behavior in that it consist in the long-term and contextualized ability of an individual to interact with others” [7]. It is about how someone interacts in relationships with others, in social relationships, “how individuals associate and interact, both in society at large and their own personal environment”, such as loss of interest in previously valued hobbies or changes within close relationships [8]. Therefore, impairments in SF, showed as a disengagement from social activities that lead to impoverished interpersonal relationships, can contribute to increased psychiatric symptoms and worse mental health [6]. Behavioral problems such as disinhibition, apathy, or loss of empathy do not belong to SF by our definition. They are neuropsychiatric symptoms and are rather a prerequisite for SF. Supplementary Table 1 gives an overview of the definitions of the terms social cognition, social behavior, and social functioning.

SF needs to be differentiated from similar terms, such as social activities, social participation, or social engagement, which are frequently measured, for example, by collecting information on the frequency of contacts or meetings with family and friends or attending events [9]. Also, closely related is the construct of social network. It can be defined as “the web of social relationships that surrounds an individual” [10]. The assessment of the social network includes network size, the relationship between members and their frequency of contact [9]. These constructs are also important in surveys about individuals with dementia, and have been studied extensively [11, 12].

Changes in SF can occur early in the course of cognitive decline [13], in various types of dementia [14], including dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [15], behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) [16] and Lewy body dementia (LBD) [17]. In bvFTD, changes in SF are best described, because associated changes occur specifically in brain areas such as frontal lobes, anterior temporal lobes, and the amygdala being pivotal for SF [16, 18]. Studies also have shown that SF is already perceptibly altered in dementia pre-stages, e.g., in mild cognitive impairment [14]. In addition to cognitive and functional impairment, SF is thus not only an important criterion in the prediction and diagnosis of dementia but also a significant target variable for assessing treatment effects in prevention and intervention studies [8].

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) also takes into account new research findings on the development and course of dementia which are explicitly reflected in expanded diagnostic criteria [19]. In addition to key characteristics, i.e., cognitive and functional impairment, social cognitive changes are now part of the diagnostic criteria of dementia, which are referred to as major neurocognitive disorder in the DSM-5. This is based on the observation that typical neuropathological changes in the brain trigger not only increasing impairment of cognitive and everyday functions, but also SF disorders [20]. Social cognition includes, e.g., aspects of social perception, social memory processes, socially influenced emotions, and thinking and acting [7, 15] and can be tested with standardized tests (for an overview, see [21]). SF needs to be assessed through self- and other-report questionnaires.

The significance of assessing SF in dementia consists in its usefulness for a better understanding of changes in relationships and associated outcomes in patients, relatives, and caregivers. It can be useful in the evaluation of intervention effects. As such, it can facilitate the development of effective psychosocial therapies and prevention interventions. This presumes valid and reliable measures of SF.

Therefore, the aims of the study were:

To systematically review the literature to identify instruments for assessing SF in individuals with dementia;

to provide an overview of the characteristics of the identified instruments and the feasibility of their application in individuals with dementia;

to provide an overview of the psychometric properties (e.g., reliability, validity, and responsiveness) of the identified instruments;

to provide recommendations for future research regarding instruments for assessing SF in individuals with dementia.

METHODS

Literature search

This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [22]. We performed a systematic search for eligible articles in October 2019 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The search included the following search algorithm: (question-naire OR instrument OR tool OR measure OR scale OR assessment^* OR inventory) AND (dementia OR “cognitive function^*” OR “cognitive imp-airment^*” OR “cognitive decline” OR “neurocognitive disorder^*” OR Alzheimer) AND (“social fun-ction” OR “social behavior” OR “social activity” OR “social life” OR “social participation” OR “social co-gnition” OR “social impairment” OR “social res-ources” OR “social appropriateness” OR “social inappropriateness” OR “socioemotional function”). The search was not limited regarding years of publication.

Eligibility criteria

Published articles were included if 1) the studies explained the development or psychometric testing of an instrument designed to assess SF in 2) individuals with dementia and 3) were published in English or German language in a peer-reviewed journal.

Single items were assigned to the domain of SF if the overall questionnaire, subscales of a questionnaire, or individual items addressed aspects of SF in the broader context of social interactions of individuals with dementia.

Study selection

The search results were uploaded to a reference management software (Citavi 6). First, duplicates we-re removed. Two reviewers (JG, SR) independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all identified articles in order to check their relevance for the study. Articles selected based on title and abstract screening were then read in full, specifically if the eligibility criteria were not clear yet. In case of disagreement, both reviewers discussed the articles until a consensus was reached.

Data extraction and data synthesis

The data were extracted by one researcher (JG). The following data were inventoried and described: 1) characteristics of the instrument (e.g., domains, number of items, scoring), 2) feasibility (administration, duration of application, ease of use, the latter indicating the ease with which the items are understood by or explained to the person with dementia, caregiver, or the interviewer and the availability of the instruments), and 3) psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness, the latter defined as the ability to reflect changes in cognitive functions).

RESULTS

The search in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases revealed 5,296 references. In total, 1,667 duplicates were eliminated. Additionally, 11 potentially suitable articles were identified after checking the reference lists of potentially eligible full-text articles. Finally, the study selection resulted in 8 articles describing three relevant instruments. Figure 1 illustrates the selection process.

Fig. 1

PRISMA flow chart of literature references on instruments for social functioning (SF) included in the review.

In addition to the three relevant instruments, a number of other instruments were identified, which included single items of relevance as part of other constructs. Such instruments were not the focus of the study; however, Table 1 provides a brief overview of these instruments. Moreover, Supplementary Table 2 lists further instruments that were not included in the systematic review with reasons for exclusion.

Table 1

Instruments that include items to assess social functioning in individuals with dementia

Instrument	Construct	Domains/scales Items that cover SF^#	No. items (total/SF)	Number of response categories	Validity	Test-retest reliability	Interrater reliability	Internal consistency	Completion time^*
Behavioral Assessment Scale [35]	Adaptive functioning	1. Daily living skills	32/5	for 9 items 2¹
		2. Communication and social skills
		Oral comprehension; Oral expression; Nonverbal expression; Contact with others; Awareness of Familiar Persons others; Awareness of familiar persons
		3. Problem behavior
		4. Global functioning
Behavioral and Emotional Activities Manifested in Dementia [36]	Troublesome and disruptive behavior	1. Target behaviors Hostility/Aggression; Disruption of other’s activities; Uncooperativeness	16/3	4; exception one item 3	X		X
		2. Inferred behaviors
Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale [37, 38]	Behavioral disturbance	1. Paranoid and delusional ideation	25/2	4	X		X
		2. Hallucinations
		3. Activity disturbances
		4. Aggressiveness
		Verbal outburst;Physical threats nd violence
		5. Diurnal rhythm disturbances
		6. Affective disturbances
		7. Anxieties and phobias
Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia [39]	Behavioral pathology	1. Psychotic symptoms	48/2	for 26 items 5; for 11 items 6, for 8 items 2				X
		2. Depressive symptoms
		3. Behavioral dysregulation
		4. Irritability/aggression
		Uncooperative; Verbal aggression
		5. Inertia
		6. Vegetative
Behavioral Syndromes Scale for Dementia [40]	Behavioral symptoms and syndromes	1. Disinhibition	24/3	7, except for “denial” 5
		Has he been verbally abusive? Has he been swearing or yelling?; Has he been physically abusive toward you or others?; Has he tied to hit you or someone else?
		2. Apathy-indifference
		Has he been interested in being with friends and relatives as he used to be?			X		X	X	20–30
		3. Catastrophic reactions
		4. Sundowning
		5. Denial
		6. Other clinical features
		7. Most distressing behavioral problem²
CERAD Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia [41]	Psychopatho- logic signs and symptoms	1. Depressive Features	51/2	for 5 items 2; for 46 items 7	X	X			20-45
		2. Psychotic Features
		3. Defective Self-Regulation
		4. Irritation/Agitation
		5. Vegetative Features
		6. Apathy
		7. Aggression
		Verbal aggression; Physical aggression
		8. Affective lability
Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale [42, 43]	Behavioral symptoms	Makes physical attacks (e.g., hits, bites, scratches, kicks, or spits)	28/1	5	X	X		X
Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale [44]	Disruptive Behavior	1. Physical aggression	21/6	5	X		X
		Hitting; Kicking; Biting; Spitting; Other physical aggression
		2.Verbal aggression
		Other verbal aggression
		3. Agitation
		4. Wandering
Empirical Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale [45]	Behavioral symptoms	1. Paranoid and delusional ideation	12/2	4			X		20
		2. Hallucinations
		3. Activity disturbance
		4. Aggressively
		Verbal outburst; Physical threats and violence
		5. Affective disturbance
		6. Anxieties and phobias
Geriatric Rating Scale [46]	Level of functioning	The patient communicated in any manner (by speaking, writing, or gesturing) well enough to make himself easily understood; The patient will begin conversations with others; Without being asked, the patient physically helps other patients; The patient talks with other people on the ward; The patient verbally threatens to harm other patients or staff; The patient physically tries to harm other patients or staff	31/6	3	X		X
Manchester and Oxford Universities Scale for the Psychopathological Assessment of Dementia [47]	Psychopatho-logical and behavioral changes	1. Delusion	59/1	4	X	X	X
		2. Hallucinations
		3. Misidentifications
		4. Reduplications
		5. Walking
		6. Eating
		7. Sleep
		8. Sexual behavior
		9. Aggression
		Has she been physically or verbally aggressive since onset of memory problems (more aggressive than before onset of dementia)?
		10. Other types of behavior in the last month
Nursing Home Behavior problems Scale [48]	Behavioral Problems	11. Uncooperative or aggressive behavior	29/2	5	X		X		3–5
		Fights or is physically aggressive: hits, slaps, kicks, bites, spites, pushes, pulls
		12. Irrational or restless behavior
		Says things that do not make sense
		13. Sleep problems
		14. Annoying behavior
		15. Inappropriate behavior
		16. Dangerous behavior
Present Behavioral Examination [49]	Abnormal behavior	1. Mental health	187 ³/ ⁴	7		X	X
		2. Walking (activity disturbance)
		3. Eating
		4. Diurnal rhythm
		5. Aggressive behavior^∘
		6. Sexual behavior
		7. Incontinence
		8. Individual behavioral abnormalities
Problem Behavior Inventory [50]	Dementia-related problem behavior	1. Mood	24/3	5	X				20
		2. Verbal
		Being verbally aggressive or abusive to you or others
		3. ADL related
		4. Physical	21/19	4		X	X
		Seeking attention; Being physically aggressive to you or others
Rating Scale for aggressive Behavior [51]	Aggressive behavior	Been demanding or argumentative; Shouted, yelled or screamed; Sworn or used abusive language; Disobeyed ward rules, e.g., deliberately passed urine outside the commode; Been uncooperative or resisted help, e.g., while being given a bath or medication; Been generally in a bad mood, irritable or quick to fly off the handle; Been critical, sarcastic or derogatory, e.g., saying someone is stupid or incompetent; Been impatient or got angry if something does not suit him/her; Threatened to harm or made statements to scare others; Indulged in antisocial acts, e.g., deliberately stealing food or tripping someone; Pushed or shoved others; Destroyed property or thrown things around angrily, e.g., towels, medicines; Been angry with him/herself; Attempted to kick anyone; Attempted to hit others; Attempted to bite, scratch, spit at, or pinch others; Used an object (such as a towel or a walking stick) to lash out or hurt someone); In the past 3 days, has the patient inflicted any injury on others?; Taking all factors info consideration, do you consider the patient ’ s behavior in the last 3days to have been aggressive?
Revised Index for Social Engagement [52]	Social engagement	At ease interacting with others; Initiates interaction with others; Reacts positively to interactions by others	6/3	2	X	X	X
Revised Memory and Behavioral Problem Checklist [53]	Behavioral problems	1. Memory related	24/3	5	X			X
		2. Depression
		1. Disruptive behaviors
		Threats to hurt others; Aggressive to others verbally; Arguing, irritability, and/or complaining
Revised Memory and Behavioral Problem Checklist –Nursing Home [54]	Problem behavior	Behavior problem frequency questions:	42/ ⁴	6 for behavior frequency questions and 5 for burden questions	X	X	X	X
		1. Memory related
		2. Emotional
		3 Disruption
		e.g., How often has your resident engaged in combative behavior (hitting, scratching, or biting)? ⁴
		Burden questions:
		1. Care-related
		2. Social-emotional
Social-Adaptive Functioning Evaluation [55]	Crucial adaptive functions	Conversational skills; Social Appropriateness/politeness; Social engagement; Friendships	17/4	4	X	X	X	X
The Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s disease [56]	Neuropsy chiatric symptoms	1. Delusion	56/2	2, except for “depression” 5	X		X		10–25
		2. Hallucinations
		3. Illusions
		4. Behavioral disturbances
		Has he/she made verbal outbursts?; Has he/she physical threats and/or violence?
		Depression
Ward Function Inventory [57]	Self help and other skills relevant to the geriatric inpatient population	Socialization; Inappropriate behavior; Verbal skills	12/3	5, except for two items 3	X		X

SF, social functioning; ^# Domains and/or subscales are listed in numbered order. Below them, items relevant for SF are listed in italics. Individual items are separated by a semicolon. If an instrument has no subscales, only the items are listed (in italics). Subscales that contain relevant items are printed in bold; ^*in minutes; X: indicate quality criterion was tested; ¹No information about the number of answer categories of the other items; ²qualitative question; ³121 main questions and 66 nested questions; ⁴detailed list of items is not freely available.

Instruments for assessing social functioning in individuals with dementia

Characteristics and feasibility of the instruments

The identified instruments for assessing SF in individuals with dementia were the Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER) [23], the Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF-DEM) [8], and the Socioemotional Dysfunction Scale (SDS) [24]. Table 2 shows the characteristics and feasibility of the instruments.

Table 2

Characteristics and feasibility of instruments for assessing social functioning in individuals with dementia

Measure	Characteristics of the instrument				Feasibility
	Domains	No. items	Scoring	Administration	Completion time	Ease of use and acceptability
Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER)	6	30	5-point Likert scale	Administration by a close caregiver	Not reported	Rated by N = 42 raters as understandable and acceptable in terms of content [23].
	Scale “social behavior”	5				Acceptance by relatives and caregivers was very good [27].
Socioemotional Dysfunction Scale (SDS)	1	40	5-point Likert scale	Proxy-report	Not reported	Not reported
Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF—DEM)	4	20	4-point Likert scale	Self-report and carer-report	Persons with dementia:13 minutes [8];	Availability: Freely available online
					Carer: 11 minutes [8];	Acceptability: 62% rated the instrument as acceptable or very acceptable (38%) [8]
						Floor or celling effects: None [8]
					5 minutes [28]	Ease of use: No missings and no problems. All study participants could answer the questions of the self- and carer-report [8]; 95,3% could answer all questions in the carer-report [28]

Table 3

Psychometric properties of instruments for assessing social functioning in individuals with dementia

Authors	Target population	Reliability	Validity	Responsiveness
Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER) - Scale “social behavior’
Brunner and Spiegel (1990) [23]		Not reported for subscales of the NOSGER.	Not reported for subscales of the NOSGER.	Not reported for subscales of the NOSGER.
Spiegel et al. (1991) [25]	Close relatives or nursing staff of older individuals living in the community	High interrater and test-retest reliability. Refers to Brunner and Spiegel (1990) [23]:	Concurrent validity: High and meaningful correlations Refers to Brunner and Spiegel (1990) [23]: with “social dysfunction²” (r_s = 0.84), “extraversion³” (r_s = 0.75)	Not reported
		Interrater reliability: r_s = 0.74
		Test-retest reliability: r_s = 0.80
		Population: N = 32 older individuals (Age: 56–96¹)
	Individuals with Alzheimer disease, living in the community and institutions	Refers to not published article:	Refers to not published article: “memory disturbance⁴” (r_s = 0.76), “confusion⁴” (r_s = 0.75), “activity/communication” (r_s = 0.64)
		Interrater reliability: r_s = 0.89
		Test-retest reliability: r_s = 0.87
		Population:N = 27 patients with Alzheimer (Age: No detailed information available)
	Patients in a multicenter drug trail	Refers to Tremmel and Spiegel (1993) [30]:	Refers to Tremmel and Spiegel “apathy⁵” (r_s = 0.62) and “interpersonal relations⁵” (r_s = 0.52)
		Interrater reliability: r_s = 0.86
		Test-retest reliability: r_s = 0.86
		Population: N = 28 patients (Age: No detailed information available)
Tremmel and Spiegel (1993) [30]	Patients in a multicenter drug trail	Refers to Spiegel et al. (1991) [25]: high test-retest and interrater reliability in very different settings	Refers to Spiegel et al. (1991) [25]: satisfactory concurrent validity	Sensitive to change: Changes in “social behavior” correlated with independent physicians overall assessments of treatment efficacy (r = 0.41). Low correlation between “social behavior” change scores and MMSE change scores (r = –0.19).
				Population:n = 123 individuals with mild to moderate dementia severity
Wahle et al. (1996) [27]	Older individuals	Interrater reliability:r = 0.68	Content validity: close correlation with the first dimension of PLUT (“disturbed social behavior”) (r_s = 0.74) and statistically significant correlations with the dimensions memory (r_s between –59 and –38), IADL (r_s = –56) and self-care⁶ (r_s = 54).	Not mentioned
		Test-retest reliability^a: r_s = 0.87; r^* = 0.88	Discriminant validity: Significant differences between the four groups (H = 48.21). Differences between healthy subjects and all other groups.
		Population: healthy old subjects (n = 50), patients with mild dementia (n = 25), patients with serve dementia (n = 25), elderly patients with depression (n = 25) (Age: 65–90)	Population: healthy old subjects, patients with mild dementia, patients with serve dementia, elderly patients with depression
Bläsi et al. (2005) [29]	Older individuals without dementia and with probable AD (Age: No detailed information available).		Correlation with MMSE r_s = –0.25 for the Alzheimer disease-Sample. Correct classification rate at acceptable level: 71.5%	NOSGER revealed good discriminatory power in those behavioral dimensions affected in early stages on AD and is suitable for monitoring behavioral changes as a function of disease progression. Its use in combination with the MMSE for dementia screening purposes is recommended.
Socioemotional Dysfunction Scale (SDS)
Barsuglia et al. (2014) [24]	Individuals with dementia and their caregivers	Internal consistency: excellent (α= 0.98)	Preliminary validity: acceptable level	Discriminating between bvFTD and EOAD.
			Divergent validity: no correlation with:
			NPI:
			–depression
			–anxiety
			–delusion
			CDR:
			–memory
			–orientation
			Convergent validity: strong correlation with conceptual assessments:
			NPI:
			–disinhibition (r = 0.82)
			–appetite/eating changes (r = 0.71)
			–disinhibition (r = 0.68)
			–aberrant motor behaviors (r = 0.65)
			–agitation (r = 0.65)
			–elation (r = 0.62)
			–elation/euphoria (r = 0.60)
			–apathy (r = 0.59)
			–agitation/aggression (r = 0.55)
			–irritability (r = 0.47)
			CDR:
			–BEHAV (r = 0.86)
			–community affairs (r = 0.67)
			–judgment and problem solving (r = 0.64)
			–home and hobbies (r = 0.50)
			–personal care (r = 0.63)
			FrSBe (r between 0.54 and 0.77)
			DKEFS design fluency repetitions (r = 0.70)
			Correct classification rate: 83%.
Social Functioning in Dementia Scale (SF-DEM)
Sommerlad et al. (2017) [8]	Individuals with mild dementia and their caregivers	Internal consistency: Patient rated instrument (α= 0.62) and caregiver rated instrument (α= 0.64) at an acceptable level.	Content validity: Based on qualitative expert opinions	The mean patient rated SF-DEM score decreased by 1.2, whereas the caregiver rated SF-DEM increased by 0.1 points on average over a time period of 6 to 8 months, indicating responsiveness to change.
		Interrater reliability: Very high for overall scores on the patient rated SF-DEM (ICC = 0.99) and the caregiver rated version (ICC = 0.99)	Population: N = 18 for focus group interview (n = 9 individuals with dementia interview (n = 9 individuals with dementia and n = 9 caregivers)	Change in MMSE score for the person with dementia was not associated with SF-DEM change.
		Test-retest reliability: Very strong for the patient rated (ICC = 0.80) and caregiver rated version (ICC = 0.89).	Construct validity: Significant positive correlation between SF-DEM and QOL—AD in both versions at Follow-Up 2 (patient rated: r_s = 0.47; caregiver rated r_s = 0.49)
		Population: N = 30 dyads of individuals with dementia and family caregivers (Age_PmD: 66–92; Age_carer: 43–76)	Concurrent validity: Both SF-DEM versions demonstrated moderate concurrent validity against a single item rating overall social functioning (patient rated r = 0.42; caregiver rated r = 0.59)
			Convergent validity: moderate correlation (r = 0.59) between overall scores from our patient rated and caregiver rated instruments
			Population: N = 30 dyads of individuals with dementia and family caregivers
Budgett et al. (2019) [28]	Carers of individuals with dementia	Refers to Sommerlad et al. (2017) [8]: high reliability	Refers to Sommerlad et al. (2017) [8]: moderate concurrent validity	Not reported
		Internal consistency: Acceptable for each of the factors (α= 0.72 –0.79)	Construct validity –“spending time with other people”:ADL (r = –0.48); NPI (r = –0.23)
		Population: N = 299 carers of individuals with dementia (n = 31 very mild, n = 108 mild, n = 99 moderate, n = 61 severe) Age_PmD: 55–98; Age_carer: 21–90	Construct validity –“communication with others”:ADL (r = –0.66); NPI (r = –0.36); DEMQOL-proxy (r = –0.13)
			Construct –“sensitivity to others”:NPI (r = –0.45); DEMQOL-proxy (r = 0.35)
			Population: N = 299 carers of individuals with dementia (n = 31 very mild, n = 108 mild, n = 99 moderate, n = 61 severe)

¹Refers to Brunner and Spiegel (1990); ²from the Geriatric Rating Scale; ³from the “semantic differential”; ⁴from the Götestam scale; ⁵SCAG factors which are similar in meaning and content to social behavior; ⁶PLUT scale “Reduced bodily care behavior”, ^atime between both interviews: 2 weeks. ^*Results from variance component analysis. α, Cronbachs Alpha; ADL, Activities of Daily Living; bvFTD, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia; CDR, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale; DEMQOL, Dementia Quality of Life Scale; DKEFS, Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System; EOAD, Early onset Alzheimer’s Disease; FrSBe, Frontal Systems Behavior Scale family version; H, Kruskal-Wallis H test; ICC, Interclass correlation coefficient; MMSE, Mini-Mental Status Examination; NPI, Neuropsychiatric Inventory; PmD, Person with Dementia; PLUT, Geriatric observation scale of Plutchik; QoL-AD, Quality of Live in Alzheimer Disease (three social questions); r, Pearson’s correlations coefficient; r_s, Spearman’s Rank coefficient.

The NOSGER is a 30-item questionnaire which is completed by a close caregiver. The screening tool was developed for outpatients and inpatients with suspected age-related dementia to detect behavioral changes in clinically relevant areas. Each area is assessed by one domain: memory, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), activities of daily living (ADL), mood, social behavior, and disturbing behavior. Only one of the six domains, social behavior, taps into SF with five items (e.g., “Is interested in what is going on around him/her”, “Makes contact with people around”; cf. [25]). The scale is scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 to 5; “all the time” to “never”). The questions apply to the last four weeks.

The SDS is a 40-item scale for socioemotional dysfunction that can be completed by an informant (spouse, family member, caregiver, or other). The questionnaire reflects social interpersonal phenomena and socioemotional changes. Collective clinical features (disinhibition, apathy, social disengagement, poor social awareness, and difficulty discerning negative feelings in others) are represented in the content of the SDS items. This makes it especially relevant for clinicians, because these are the most promising discriminatory clinical markers of bvFTD [24]. Thirty-one items of the SDS were modified from the Social Competency Questionnaire (SCQ) [26]. The items are scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 to 5; “very inaccurate” to “very accurate”). A higher score indicates greater social dysfunction.

The SF-DEM assesses SF as the main construct and was developed specifically for individuals with dementia. It can be completed as a face-to-face interview with the individuals with dementia or with a proxy (e.g., caregiver or clinician). Both versions (self- and proxy report) consist of four domains: 1) Spending time with other people (e.g., “gone on trips or events like cinema or talks” or “seen friends and family in your own home”), 2) Communicating with other people (e.g., “talk to other people about your feelings or concerns” or “found it difficult to think of something to say to others”), and 3) Sensitivity to other people (e.g., “been very outspoken about what you really think” or “had argument or shouted at other people”). Altogether, the questionnaire includes 17 items. They are scored using a four-point Likert scale (0 to 3; “Very often” to “Never”) with a higher score indicating better SF. Three unscored summary questions assess overall impressions of SF in the individuals with dementia. These questions include recent change and willingness to make future social changes. Recent changes are recorded by comparing the current SF with the situation one year ago. Changes can be rated using a five-point ordinal scale. The will to change is assessed by asking if the individual desires to change their SF on a three-point Likert scale. The SF-DEM refers to the past four weeks.

Information on the instruments’ ease of use for individuals with dementia were found for NOSGER and SF-DEM. Regarding the NOSGER, short interviews with 42 relatives and caregivers were conducted to determine user acceptance and feasibility. In short discussions, it was determined to what extent the format of the NOSGER was acceptable and whether there were concerns or objections to individual terms. No concerns were expressed about the scale “social behavior” [23]. Wahle et al. (1996) confirmed these findings. The percentage of positive feedback given by individuals with mild dementia (87% acceptance) and individuals with moderate dementia (79% acceptance) was very high [27]. Regarding the SF-DEM, based on a survey of 30 dyads, consisting of a person with dementia and a relative each, Sommerlad et al. (2017) showed that 62% rated the SF-DEM acceptable and 38% very acceptable. There were no floor or ceiling effects, and all study participants were able to answer the questions of the self- and proxy version, respectively [8]. The acceptance of the proxy version of the SF-DEM was confirmed in a second study [28].

Psychometric properties

Psychometric properties concerning reliability, validity, and responsiveness were available for all three instruments in regard to the application in individuals with dementia. Details are given in Table 2.

The validity (concurrent) and reliability (test-retest and interrater) of the NOSGER scale “social behavior” have been tested. Spiegel et al. (1991) show high and meaningful correlations of the “social behavior” scale with external criteria measuring the same or related areas indicating concurrent validity [25], as summarized in Table 3. The interrater and the test-retest reliability showed high values in very diffe-rent settings and groups of patients. Wahle et al. (1996) showed significant differences in the results of the scale “social behavior” between healthy older individuals, individuals with mild dementia, individuals with serve dementia and elderly patients with depression [27]. The classification rate was at an acc-eptable level for this scale [29]. Responsiveness of individuals with dementia was demonstrated for the NOSGER. The study of Tremmel and Spiegel (1993) showed a moderate correlation between changes in the NOSGER scale “social behavior” and independent physicians’ overall assessments of treatment efficacy following a multicenter drug trail. In addition, they reported a moderate correlation between changes in the scale “social behavior” and the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) score, a test for cognitive impairment, assessed at baseline and at least three months later [30]. The rather short follow-up period may indicate that several different factors rather than the cognitive decline contribute to change in SF in individuals with dementia.

There was evidence for the validity (convergent and divergent) and reliability (internal consistency) of the SDS. The scale demonstrated preliminary evidence for discriminating between individuals with bvFTD and early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD). Furthermore, the SDS correlated strong with measures of conceptually similar constructs like judgment, community involvement, personal care, behavior, personality, apathy, disinhibition, elation, agitation, and irritability, which indicates convergent validity. The SDS also shows divergent validity as it can be differentiated from other concepts such as depression, anxiety, and delusion. The SDS total score did not correlate with proxy reports of measures of memory or orientation. Furthermore, the SDS did not significantly correlate with the majority of a range of cognitive tests except for one subscore of repetition errors on design fluency [24].

There was evidence for the validity (convergent, construct, content, and concurrent) and reliability (test-retest, interrater, and internal consistency) of the SF-DEM (see Table 1 for an overview). Sommerlad et al. (2017) found a moderate positive correlation between the SF-DEM total score and questions that measure a conceptually similar construct for both, the self-report and the proxy version [8]. This finding is an indication for convergent validity of both versions of the SF-DEM. Testing the construct validity of the proxy version, the domains “spending time with other people” and “communicating with other people” were correlated with levels of dependence as measured by the Bristol Activities of Daily Living (B-ADL) scale. All three domains were inversely correlated with neuropsychiatric symptoms. Only the item “sensitivity to others” was significantly correlated with quality of life. But this correlation was inversely as expected. Content validity was measured for both versions of the SF-DEM. They have shown to be good and reasonable, respectively based on qualitative opinions by interviewing study participants, both individuals with dementia and caregivers, in a focus group. Sommerlad et al. (2017) reported a moderate correlation between the patient or caregiver rated total score of the SF-DEM and their overall impression of the person’s “social life” indicates SF-DEM’s concurrent validity [8]. The agreement between patient and caregiver ratings supports the validity of the instrument. Moreover, they found pre-liminary evidence for the responsiveness of the instrument to measure changes in SF over time (repeated testing after an average of 7.2 months). In addition, there were indications that the question of the change in SF compared to a year ago predicts the SF-DEM score. However, changes in MMSE scores, i.e., cognitive impairment, in persons with dementia were not associated with changes in SF-DEM scores.

Instruments with relevant items

In addition to the three instruments presented, we have identified a number of other instruments that include SF as part of more comprehensive constructs, such as neuropsychiatric symptoms, problem behavior, and inappropriate behavior. These instruments cover SF either with single items or a number of items. Mostly, single items cover aggressive behavior. In all but one instrument, SF only plays a minor role. Table 1 provides an overview about these instruments with emphasize on the SF items.

DISCUSSION

We systematically reviewed the literature for ins-truments that are applicable for the assessment of SF in individuals with dementia. Such instruments are important in order to support a timely diagnosis of dementia and to better understand the course of the disorder. Reliable and valid instruments are also important for evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions.

Our systematic review identified three instruments to assess SF in individuals with dementia (NOSGER Scale “social behavior” [23 , 30], SDS [24], and the SF-DEM [8, 28]). Detailed information regarding the feasibility and the psychometric properties of the instruments were provided, if available.

The scale “social behavior” from the NOSGER is short, which allows for quick assessments. Furthermore, the NOSGER was psychometrically tested (concurrent validity, test-retest, and interrater reliability) in different settings with different groups of elderly, which supports a broad application. It can be used to assess SF in individuals with any degree of dementia and is particularly helpful for individuals with AD. However, SF is not assessed as comprehensive as in the other two questionnaires: First, the SF-DEM consists of various subscales that comprehensively assess SF. It is the only questionnaire that can be completed by the individual with dementia or a proxy. In addition, it is the only questionnaire that also records changes in SF over time and asks about satisfaction with social life and the desire for change. This instrument was developed for individuals with dementia of any subtype. Specifically, it has been tested in individuals with mild dementia in regard to the self-report version, while the proxy-report version has also been tested in moderate to severe dementia. Comprehensive information about validity (convergent, construct, content, and concurrent) and reliability (test-retest, interrater and internal consistency) is available. The SF-DEM can be used for and the evaluation of interventions. It is also possible to track decline in SF in the context of disease progression. In addition to the SF-DEM, the SDS also provides comprehensive coverage of SF, whereby some of its items rather represent prerequisites for SF by covering socio-emotional changes including theory of mind. It can be used to assess SF in individuals with mild dementia. Therefore, it is possible to distinguish between individuals with EOAD and bvFTD on the basis of the results from SDS, which is not feasible using the SF-DEM. The SDS questionnaire is thus primarily relevant for clinical and diagnostic use. Currently there are estimates on the convergent and divergent validity and internal consistency, but there are no findings on test-retest reliability and interrater reliability of the SDS. The NOSGER and SF-DEM showed high values for the test-retest and interrater reliability. These instruments thus measure SF independently of the rater.

Besides the above discussed instruments, we have found a number of other instruments that include items to assess SF as part of a more comprehensive construct. The majority of these instruments add-ress a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms (e.g., aggression, agitation, wandering, yelling, repetitive behavior, etc.). Because single items of these instruments may only cover aspects of SF as opposed to measures such as the SF-DEM, which provide a comprehensive understanding of multiple facets of SF, these instruments may give rather limited information about SF in individuals with dementia. Therefore, instruments like the NOSGER scale “social behavior” and the SF-DEM seem more suitable, specifically as these instruments have been psychometrically tested.

Strengths and limitations

Our systematic review is, to the best of our kno-wledge, the first to provide an overview about instruments to assess SF in individuals with dementia. Our literature search was broadly diversified by using three databases. This ensured that as many relevant articles as possible were found. Only articles from peer-reviewed journals were considered. This procedure should make sure that the basic scientific quality of the studies that were included was given.

Nevertheless, there are also limitations in our study. First, it is possible that we missed relevant articles that were not covered by our search terms. Therefore, we additionally searched the references of potentially eligible articles. A second limitation concerns the restriction of the language of the selected articles: we were only able to consider articles in English or German language. Consequently, we may have missed instruments or versions of instruments published in different languages.

Further research and recommendations

Overall, the number of instruments to assess SF or aspects of SF in individuals with dementia was small. Moreover, the SF-DEM and the SDS are currently only available in English language. However, valid and reliable instruments to assess SF in individuals with dementia should also be available in different languages, for assessment in culturally different populations. Therefore, it is necessary to make progress toward adapting original instruments with promising psychometric properties for different languages. Moreover, specific inspection of the applicability of promising instruments could be tested in regard to different stages of disease progression, including more severe dementia, but also pre-stages and prodromal stages. This would be especially interesting to describe change in SF in relation to disease progression. Different types of dementia should be targeted as well. Currently, there is no instrument for SF specifically for individuals with AD. This is despite the fact that this is the most common of all dementias. It would be worthwhile to consider whether such a specific instrument would be useful. It could include aspects of personality and social changes, such as rigidity, self-centeredness, and limitations of social control, but also limitations in emotional recognition. There is evidence that such changes can occur in the preclinical and prodromal stages of AD [31, 32].

CONCLUSION

There are a few instruments to comprehensively assess SF in individuals with dementia, of which two instruments have been found to be psychometrically sound in regard to the considered populations (the NOSGER and the SF-DEM). Further reliability and validation studies would be useful in regard to instrument applicability in individuals at different stages of dementia including pre- and prodromal stages as well as different types of dementia. Studies that inspect the reliability of SDS would be valuable. Adaptations of standardized original instruments into other languages and cultural settings would be highly useful. Such adaptations should include examining the content of the questions in the questionnaire with regard to cultural differences, as social conventions and habits can differ in different societies [33, 34]. Having reliable standardized instruments to measure SF in individuals with different types of dementia is a prerequisite to driving our understanding and knowledge about the role of SF in any type of de-mentia. Research on the social aspects, especially SF in different types of dementia, is still incipient (except for bvFTD and LBD). Further questionnaires to assess specific aspects of SF depending on the type of dementia are necessary to gain a comprehensive understanding of this largely unexplored topic.

Footnotes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research is part of the study “Assessing changes in social functioning in the course of dementia: an instrument for research and clinical practice in German-speaking areas”. It was supported by the Roland Ernst Foundation.

Authors’ disclosures available online ().

The supplementary material is available in the electronic version of this article: .

References

Roehr

, Luck

, Bickel

, Brettschneider

, Ernst

, Fuchs

, Heser

, Koenig

, Jessen

, Lange

, Moesch

, Pentzek

, Steinmann

, Weyerer

, Werle

, Wiese

, Scherer

, Maier

, Riedel-Heller

, AgeCoDe Study Group (2015) Mortality in incident dementia - results from the German Study on Aging, Cognition, and Dementia in Primary Care Patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 132, 257–269.

Prince

, Ali

, Guerchet

, Prina

, Albanese

, Wu

(2016) Recent global trends in the prevalence and incidence of dementia, and survival with dementia. Alzheimers Res Ther 8, 23.

Heinrich

, Wübker

(2016) Demenz –Welche Entwicklung erwarten wir? Public Health Forum 24, 112–114.

Alzheimer’s Disease International (2019) World Alzheimer Report 2019: Attitudes to dementia. Alzheimer’s Disease International, London.

Qiu

, Kivipelto

, von Strauss

(2009) Epidemiology of Alzheimer’s disease: Occurrence, determinants, and strategies toward intervention. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 11, 111–128.

Porcelli

, van der Wee

, van der Werff

, Aghajani

, Glennon

, van Heukelum

, Mogavero

, Lobo

, Olivera

, Lobo

, Posadas

, Dukart

, Kozak

, Arce

, Ikram

, Vorstman

, Bilderbeck

, Saris

, Kas

, Serretti

(2019) Social brain, social dysfunction and social withdrawal. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 97, 10–33.

Christidi

, Migliaccio

, Santamaría-García

, Santangelo

, Trojsi

(2018) Social cognition dysfunctions in neurodegenerative diseases: Neuroanatomical correlates and clinical implications. Behav Neurol 2018, 1849794.

Sommerlad

, Singleton

, Jones

, Banerjee

, Livingston

(2017) Development of an instrument to assess social functioning in dementia: The Social Functioning in Dementia scale (SF-DEM). Alzheimers Dement 7, 88–98.

Kelly

, Duff

, Kelly

, Power

JEM

, Brennan

, Lawlor

, Loughrey

(2017) The impact of social activities, social networks, social support and social relationships on the cognitive functioning of healthy older adults: A systematic review. Syst Rev 6, 259.

10.

Berkman

, Glass

, Brissette

, Seeman

(2000) From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med 51, 843–857.

11.

Penninkilampi

, Casey

, Singh

, Brodaty

(2018) The association between social engagement, loneliness, and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 66, 1619–1633.

12.

Kuiper

, Zuidersma

, Voshaar

RCO

, Zuidema

, van den Heuvel

, Stolk

, Smidt

(2015) Social relationships and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res Rev 22, 39–57.

13.

Kotwal

, Kim

, Waite

, Dale

(2016) Social function and cognitive status: Results from a US nationally representative survey of older adults. J Gen Intern Med 31, 854–862.

14.

Henry

, Hippel von

, Thompson

, Pulford

, Sachdev

, Brodaty

(2012) Social behavior in mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 34, 806–813.

15.

Verdon

C-M

, Fossati

, Verny

, Dieudonne

, Teillet

, Nadel

(2007) Social cognition: An early impairment in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Dis 21, 25–30.

16.

Bickart

, Brickhouse

, Negreira

, Sapolsky

, Barrett

, Dickerson

(2014) Atrophy in distinct corticolimbic networks in frontotemporal dementia relates to social impairments measured using the Social Impairment Rating Scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 85, 438–448.

17.

Zweig

, Galvin

(2014) Lewy body dementia: The impact on patients and caregivers. Alzheimers Res Ther 6, 21.

18.

Rankin

, Kramer

, Mychack

, Miller

(2003) Double dissociation of social functioning in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 60, 266–271.

19.

Falkai

, ed. (2018) Diagnostisches und statistisches Manual psychischer Störungen DSM-5, 2nd ed., Hogrefe, Göttingen.

20.

Deutsches Institut für medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) (1995) ICD-10: Internationale statistische Klassifikation der Krankheiten und verwandter Gesundheitsprobleme, 10. Revision, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

21.

Henry

, Hippel von

, Molenberghs

, Lee

, Sachdev

(2016) Clinical assessment of social cognitive function in neurological disorders. Nat Rev Neurol 12, 28–39.

22.

Liberati

, Altman

, Tetzlaff

, Mulrow

, Gøtzsche

, Ioannidis

JPA

, Clarke

, Devereaux

, Kleijnen

, Moher

(2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6, e1000100.

23.

Brunner

, Spiegel

(1990) Eine Validierungsstudie mit der NOSGER (Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients), einem neuen Beurteilungsinstrument für die Psychogeriatrie. Z Klin Psychol 19, 211–229.

24.

Barsuglia

, Kaiser

, Wilkins

, Joshi

, Barrows

, Paholpak

, Panchal

, Jimenez

, Mather

, Mendez

(2014) A scale of socioemotional dysfunction in frontotemporal dementia. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 29, 793–805.

25.

Spiegel

, Brunner

, Ermini-Fünfschilling

, Monsch

, Notter

, Puxty

, Tremmel

(1991) A new behavioral assessment scale for geriatric out- and in-patients: The NOSGER (Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients). J Am Geriatr Soc 39, 339–347.

26.

Schneider

, Ackerman

, Kanfer

(1996) To “act wisely in human relations:” Exploring the dimensions of social competence. Pers Individ Dif 21, 469–481.

27.

Wahle

, Häller

, Spiegel

(1996) Validation of the NOSGER (Nurses’ Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients): Reliability and validity of a caregiver rating instrument. Int Psychogeriatr 8, 525–547.

28.

Budgett

, Brown

, Daley

, Page

, Banerjee

, Livingston

, Sommerlad

(2019) The social functioning in dementia scale (SF-DEM): Exploratory factor analysis and psychometric properties in mild, moderate, and severe dementia. Alzheimers Dement 11, 45–52.

29.

Bläsi

, Brubacher

, Zehnder

, Monsch

, Berres

, Spiegel

(2005) Assessment of everyday behavior in Alzheimer’s disease patients: Its significance for diagnostics and prediction of disease progression. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 20, 151–158.

30.

Tremmel

, Spiegel

(1993) Clinical experience with the NOSGER (nurses’ observation scale for geriatric patients): Tentative normative data and sensitivity to change. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 8, 311–317.

31.

Balsis

, Carpenter

, Storandt

(2005) Personality change precedes clinical diagnosis of dementia of the Alzheimer type. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60, P98–P101.

32.

Bediou

, Ryff

, Mercier

, Milliery

, Hénaff

M-A

, D’Amato

, Bonnefoy

, Vighetto

, Krolak-Salmon

(2009) Impaired social cognition in mild Alzheimer disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 22, 130–140.

33.

Beaton

, Bombardier

, Guillemin

, Ferraz

(2000) Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25, 3186–3191.

34.

Harkness

(2003) Questionnaire translation. Cross-cultural survey methods, In Harkness JA, van de Vijver FJR, Mohler PP, eds. Wiley, pp. 35–56.

35.

Woodward

, Iverson

(2000) The Behavioural Assessment Scale: Norms for factor-based subscales. Appl Neuropsychol 7, 160–185.

36.

Sinha

, Zemlan

, Nelson

, Bienenfeld

, Thienhaus

, Ramaswamy

, Hamilton

(1992) A new scale for assessing behavioral agitation in dementia. Psychiatry Res 41, 73–88.

37.

Harwood

, Ownby

, Barker

, Duara

(1998) The Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease Scale (BEHAVE-AD): Factor structure among community-dwelling Alzheimer’s disease patients. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 13, 793–800.

38.

Reisberg

, Auer

, Monteiro

(1996) Behavioral pathology in Alzheimer’s disease (BEHAVE-AD) rating scale. Int Psychogeriatr 8(Suppl 3), 301–308.

39.

Mack

, Patterson

, Tariot

(1999) Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia: Development of test scales and presentation of data for 555 individuals with Alzheimer’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 12, 211–223.

40.

Devanand

, Brockington

, Moody

, Brown

, Mayeux

, Endicott

, Sackeim

(1992) Behavioral syndromes in Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr 4(Suppl 2), 161–184.

41.

Tariot

, Mack

, Patterson

, Edland

, Weiner

, Fillenbaum

, Blazina

, Teri

, Rubin

, Mortimer

(1995) The Behavior Rating Scale for Dementia of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease. The Behavioral Pathology Committee of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease. Am J Psychiatry 152, 1349–1357.

42.

Baumgarten

, Becker

, Gauthier

(1990) Validity and reliability of the dementia behavior disturbance scale. J Am Geriatr Soc 38, 221–226.

43.

Gauthier

, Baumgarten

, Becker

(1996) Dementia Behavior Disturbance Scale. Int Psychogeriatr 8(Suppl 3), 325–327.

44.

Mungas

, Weiler

, Franzi

, Henry

(1989) Assessment of disruptive behavior associated with dementia: The Disruptive Behavior Rating Scales. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2, 196–202.

45.

Auer

, Monteiro

, Reisberg

(1996) The Empirical Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease (E-BEHAVE-AD) rating scale. Int Psychogeriatr 8, 247–266.

46.

Plutchik

, Conte

, Lieberman

, Bakur

, Grossman

, Lehrman

(1970) Reliability and validity of a scale for assessing the functioning of geriatric patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 18, 491–500.

47.

Allen

, Gordon

, Hope

, Burns

(1996) Manchester and Oxford Universities Scale for the Psychopathological Assessment of Dementia (MOUSEPAD). Br J Psychiatry 169, 293–307.

48.

Ray

, Taylor

, Lichtenstein

, Meador

(1992) The Nursing Home Behavior Problem Scale. J Gerontol 47, M9–16.

49.

Hope

, Fairburn

(1992) The Present Behavioural Examination (PBE): The development of an interview to measure current behavioural abnormalities. Psychol Med 22, 223–230.

50.

Phillips

, Diwan

, Egner

(2002) Development of a tool for assessment and care planning for dementia-related problem behaviors in home and community-based services programs: The Problem Behavior Inventory. Home Health Care Serv Q 21, 29–45.

51.

Patel

, Hope

(1992) A rating scale for aggressive behaviour in the elderly - the RAGE. Psychol Med 22, 211–221.

52.

Gerritsen

, Steverink

, Frijters

DHM

, Hirdes

, Ooms

, Ribbe

(2008) A revised Index for Social Engagement for long-term care. J Gerontol Nurs 34, 40–48.

53.

Teri

, Truax

, Logsdon

, Uomoto

, Zarit

, Vitaliano

(1992) Assessment of behavioral problems in dementia: The Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist. Psychol Aging 7, 622–631.

54.

Allen

, Burgio

, Roth

, Ragsdale

, Gerstle

, Bourgeois

, Dijkstra

, Teri

(2003) The Revised Memory and Behavior Problems Checklist - Nursing Home: Instrument development and measurement of burden among certified nursing assistants. Psychol Aging 18, 886–895.

55.

Harvey

, Davidson

, Mueser

, Parrella

, White

, Powchik

(1997) Social-Adaptive Functioning Evaluation (SAFE): A rating scale for geriatric psychiatric patients. Schizophr Bull 23, 131–145.

56.

Devanand

, Miller

, Richards

, Marder

, Bell

, Mayeux

, Stern

(1992) The Columbia University Scale for Psychopathology in Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 49, 371–376.

57.

Norton

, Romano

, Sandifer

(1977) The Ward Function Inventory (WFI): A scale for use with geriatric and demented inpatients. Dis Nerv Syst 38, 20–23.