BACKGROUND: This study aimed to describe the level of agreement of three commonly used delirium instruments: the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), and Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S). METHODS: We used data from a prospective clinical research study, in which a team of trained lay interviewers administered each instrument along with supporting interview and cognitive assessments in the same group of patients daily while in the hospital (N = 352). We used item response theory methods to co-calibrate the instruments. RESULTS: The latent traits underlying the three measures, capturing the severity of a delirium assessment, had a high degree of correlation (r's > .82). Unidimensional factor models fit well, facilitating co-calibration of the instruments. Across instruments, the less intense symptoms were generally items reflecting cognitive impairment. Although the intensity of delirium severity for most in the sample was relatively low, many of the item thresholds for the delirium severity scales are high (i.e., in the more severe range of the latent ability distribution). This indicates that even people with severe delirium may have a low probability of endorsing the highest severity categories for many items. Co-calibration enabled us to derive crosswalks to map delirium severity scores among the delirium instruments. CONCLUSION: These delirium instruments measure the same underlying construct of delirium severity. Relative locations of items may inform design of refined measurement instruments. Mapping of overall delirium severity scores across the delirium severity instruments enabled us to derive crosswalks, which allow scores to be translated across instruments, facilitating comparison and combination of delirium studies for integrative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Difficulties with performance of functional activities may result from cognitive and/or physical impairments. To date, there has not been a clear delineation of the physical and cognitive demands of activities of daily living. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the relative physical and cognitive demands required to complete typical functional activities in older adults. DESIGN: Expert panel survey. SETTING: Web-based platform. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven experts from 8 academic medical centers and 300 community-dwelling elderly adults age 70 and older scheduled for elective noncardiac surgery from 2 academic medical centers. METHODS: Sum scores of expert ratings were calculated and then validated against objective data collected from a prospective longitudinal study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Correlation between expert ratings and objective neuropsychologic tests (memory, language, complex attention) and physical measures (gait speed and grip strength) for performance-based tasks. RESULTS: Managing money, self-administering medications, using the telephone, and preparing meals were rated as requiring significantly more cognitive demand, whereas walking and transferring, moderately strenuous activities, and climbing stairs were assessed as more physically demanding. Largely cognitive activities correlated with objective neuropsychologic performance (r = 0.13-0.23, P < .05) and largely physical activities correlated with physical performance (r = 0.15-0.46, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying the degree of cognitive and/or physical demand for completing a specific task adds an additional dimension to standard measures of functional assessment. This additional information may significantly influence decisions about rehabilitation, postacute care needs, treatment plans, and caregiver education. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of memory training research was conducted to characterize the effect of memory strategies on memory performance among cognitively intact, community-dwelling older adults, and to identify characteristics of individuals and of programs associated with improved memory. The review identified 402 publications, of which 35 studies met criteria for inclusion. The overall effect size estimate, representing the mean standardized difference in pre-post change between memory-trained and control groups, was 0.31 standard deviations (SD; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22, 0.39). The pre-post training effect for memory-trained interventions was 0.43 SD (95% CI: 0.29, 0.57) and the practice effect for control groups was 0.06 SD (95% CI: -0.05, 0.16). Among 10 distinct memory strategies identified in studies, meta-analytic methods revealed that training multiple strategies was associated with larger training gains (p = 0.04), although this association did not reach statistical significance after adjusting for multiple comparisons. Treatment gains among memory-trained individuals were not better after training in any particular strategy, or by the average age of participants, session length, or type of control condition. These findings can inform the design of future memory training programs for older adults.