1 resultado para validation study
em Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA
Filtro por publicador
- ABACUS. Repositorio de Producción Científica - Universidad Europea (1)
- Aberdeen University (1)
- Abertay Research Collections - Abertay University’s repository (1)
- Academic Research Repository at Institute of Developing Economies (1)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (2)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (11)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (5)
- ArchiMeD - Elektronische Publikationen der Universität Mainz - Alemanha (1)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (2)
- Aston University Research Archive (19)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (31)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (BDPI/USP) (53)
- Biblioteca Virtual del Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía (BV-SSPA), Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social, Spain (12)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (128)
- Brock University, Canada (1)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (1)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (25)
- CiencIPCA - Instituto Politécnico do Cávado e do Ave, Portugal (1)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (4)
- Collection Of Biostatistics Research Archive (1)
- Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya (CSUC), Spain (18)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (2)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (1)
- Digital Commons - Michigan Tech (3)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (2)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (9)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (10)
- Doria (National Library of Finland DSpace Services) - National Library of Finland, Finland (12)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (2)
- Duke University (2)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (1)
- FUNDAJ - Fundação Joaquim Nabuco (4)
- Glasgow Theses Service (5)
- Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra (2)
- Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (10)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (5)
- Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States (3)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (2)
- Open University Netherlands (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (3)
- Portal do Conhecimento - Ministerio do Ensino Superior Ciencia e Inovacao, Cape Verde (1)
- Publishing Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data (1)
- QSpace: Queen's University - Canada (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (4)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (8)
- Repositório Científico do Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa - Portugal (3)
- Repositório da Produção Científica e Intelectual da Unicamp (15)
- Repositorio de la Universidad de Cuenca (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (1)
- Repositório do Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE - Centro Hospitalar de Lisboa Central, EPE, Portugal (3)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (1)
- Repositório Institucional dos Hospitais da Universidade Coimbra (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (91)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (1)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (13)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (2)
- Scielo España (4)
- Scielo Saúde Pública - SP (49)
- Scielo Uruguai (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (9)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (14)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (20)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (3)
- Universidade do Minho (16)
- Universidade dos Açores - Portugal (1)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (2)
- Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (2)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (142)
- Université de Montréal (3)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (38)
- Université Laval Mémoires et thèses électroniques (5)
- University of Michigan (3)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (32)
- University of Washington (2)
- Worcester Research and Publications - Worcester Research and Publications - UK (2)
Resumo:
The short, portable mental status questionnaire (SPMSQ) developed by Pfeiffer has several advantages over previous short instruments designed to assess the intellectual functioning of older adults. It is based upon data from both institutionalized and community-dwelling elderly. Although Pfeiffer a four-group classification, he used to groups in his initial validation study: (a) intact/mildly impaired, and (b) moderately/severely impaired. The present study compared clinicians' ratings with those based upon the SPMSQ scores, and examined the validity of the four-group classification. The sample included 181 subjects from seven intermediate care facilities and nine home-care agencies. All were assessed by the OARS questionnaire, which includes the SPMSQ Three discriminant analyses were performed with three different criteria, for two-group, three-group, and four-group models. Results indicated that the two-group model (intact/mildly impaired and moderately/severely impaired) permitted significant discrimination. The four-group model, however, gave less distinct results. In particular, patients who were mildly intellectually impaired could not be clearly distinguished from those who were intact and from those who were moderately impaired. The three-group model (minimally, moderately, severely impaired) seemed to offer the best compromise between the gross dichotomy of the original two-model system and the less accurate four category system.