4.1 Article

An examination of instrumental activities of daily living assessment in older adults and mild cognitive impairment

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13803395.2011.614598

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment; Instrumental activities of daily living; Cognitive correlates of everyday functioning; Prediction of future decline; Assessment and classification

资金

  1. Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
  2. Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Basic activities of daily living (ADL) are self-maintenance abilities such as dressing or bathing. Instrumental ADL (IADL) are more complex everyday tasks, such as preparing a meal or managing finances (Lawton & Brody, 1969). IADL questionnaires play an important role in assessing the functional abilities of older adults and evaluating the impact of cognitive impairment on routine activities. This paper examined the cognitive processes that underlie IADL performance and concluded that the accurate and reliable execution of IADL likely draws upon the integrity of a wide range of cognitive processes. This review examined IADL in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) because of the controversial nature of distinguishing a significant decline in functional abilities in those with MCI versus dementia or MCI versus cognitively normal aging. The challenges of investigating IADL empirically were explored, as well as some of the reasons for the inconsistent findings in the literature. A review of questionnaire-based assessments of IADL indicated that: MCI can be distinguished statistically from healthy older adults and dementia, individuals with multiple domain MCI are more impaired on IADL than those with single domain MCI, mild IADL changes can be predictive of future cognitive decline, and the ability to manage finances may be among the earliest IADL changes in MCI and a strong predictor of conversion to dementia. This paper concluded with recommendations for more sensitive and reliable IADL questionnaires.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据