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 (2)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (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 (7)
- AMS Tesi di Laurea - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (4)
- Aquatic Commons (5)
- ArchiMeD - Elektronische Publikationen der Universität Mainz - Alemanha (1)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (2)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (6)
- 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) (8)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (1)
- Bioline International (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (128)
- Boston University Digital Common (2)
- Brock University, Canada (1)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Bulgarian Digital Mathematics Library at IMI-BAS (1)
- CaltechTHESIS (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (10)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (25)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (4)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (4)
- Collection Of Biostatistics Research Archive (1)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (3)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (1)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (87)
- 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)
- DRUM (Digital Repository at the University of Maryland) (3)
- Duke University (4)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (4)
- FUNDAJ - Fundação Joaquim Nabuco (4)
- Funes: Repositorio digital de documentos en Educación Matemática - Colombia (2)
- Glasgow Theses Service (5)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (3)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (5)
- Hospitais da Universidade de Coimbra (2)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (18)
- Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (1)
- Instituto Politécnico de Viseu (1)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (3)
- Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada - Lisboa (5)
- Memorial University Research Repository (1)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (2)
- Open University Netherlands (1)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (5)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (4)
- 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 (57)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (118)
- Repositório Científico da Universidade de Évora - Portugal (9)
- 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 (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (2)
- Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Pública de Navarra - Espanha (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 (6)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (3)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (2)
- Scielo España (4)
- Scielo Uruguai (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (9)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (14)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (20)
- Universidade Complutense de Madrid (3)
- Universidade de Lisboa - Repositório Aberto (3)
- 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 (12)
- 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 (20)
- University of Washington (2)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (3)
- 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.