Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Harmonization of delirium severity instruments: a comparison of the DRS-R-98, MDAS, and CAM-S using item response theory

Authors: Alden L. Gross, Doug Tommet, Madeline D’Aquila, Eva Schmitt, Edward R. Marcantonio, Benjamin Helfand, Sharon K. Inouye, Richard N. Jones, for the BASIL Study Group

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Inouye SK, Westendorp RG, Saczynski JS. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):911–22.CrossRefPubMed Inouye SK, Westendorp RG, Saczynski JS. Delirium in elderly people. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):911–22.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Witlox J, Eurelings LSM, de Jonghe JFM, Kalisvaart KJ, Eikelenboom P, Van Gool WA. Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia. JAMA. 2010;304(4):443–51.CrossRefPubMed Witlox J, Eurelings LSM, de Jonghe JFM, Kalisvaart KJ, Eikelenboom P, Van Gool WA. Delirium in elderly patients and the risk of postdischarge mortality, institutionalization, and dementia. JAMA. 2010;304(4):443–51.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Charpentier PA, et al. A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(9):669–76.CrossRefPubMed Inouye SK, Bogardus ST Jr, Charpentier PA, et al. A multicomponent intervention to prevent delirium in hospitalized older patients. N Engl J Med. 1999;340(9):669–76.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults. American Geriatrics Society abstracted clinical practice guideline for postoperative delirium in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(1):142–50.CrossRef American Geriatrics Society Expert Panel on Postoperative Delirium in Older Adults. American Geriatrics Society abstracted clinical practice guideline for postoperative delirium in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(1):142–50.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference NICE. Delirium: diagnosis, prevention and management. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010. NICE. Delirium: diagnosis, prevention and management. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2010.
9.
go back to reference Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941–8.CrossRefPubMed Inouye SK, van Dyck CH, Alessi CA, Balkin S, Siegal AP, Horwitz RI. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method. A new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(12):941–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Trzepacz PT, Mulsant BH, Amanda Dew M, Pasternak R, Sweet RA, Zubenko GS. Is delirium different when it occurs in dementia? a study using the delirium rating scale. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1998;10(2):199–204.CrossRefPubMed Trzepacz PT, Mulsant BH, Amanda Dew M, Pasternak R, Sweet RA, Zubenko GS. Is delirium different when it occurs in dementia? a study using the delirium rating scale. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1998;10(2):199–204.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Trzepacz PT, Dew MA. Further analyses of the delirium rating scale. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1995;17(2):75–9.CrossRefPubMed Trzepacz PT, Dew MA. Further analyses of the delirium rating scale. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1995;17(2):75–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, Smith MJ, Cohen K, Passik S. The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(3):128–37.CrossRefPubMed Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, Smith MJ, Cohen K, Passik S. The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997;13(3):128–37.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Dorans NJ, Moses TP, Eignor DR. Principles and practices of test score equating. Princeton: Educational Testing Service; 2010. ETS RR-10-29 Dorans NJ, Moses TP, Eignor DR. Principles and practices of test score equating. Princeton: Educational Testing Service; 2010. ETS RR-10-29
15.
go back to reference Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1980. Lord F. Applications of item response theory to practical testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 1980.
16.
go back to reference Trzepacz PT, Mittal D, Torres R, Kanary K, Norton J, Jimerson N. Validation of the delirium rating scale-Revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;13(2):229–42.CrossRefPubMed Trzepacz PT, Mittal D, Torres R, Kanary K, Norton J, Jimerson N. Validation of the delirium rating scale-Revised-98: comparison with the delirium rating scale and the cognitive test for delirium. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2001;13(2):229–42.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (fourth edition) (DSM-IV). 4 ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 1994. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (fourth edition) (DSM-IV). 4 ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
18.
19.
go back to reference Reckase MD. Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer; 2009.CrossRef Reckase MD. Multidimensional item response theory. New York: Springer; 2009.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Thissen D, Orlando M. Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, editors. Test scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2001. p. 73–140.CrossRef Thissen D, Orlando M. Item response theory for items scored in two categories. In: Thissen D, Wainer H, editors. Test scoring. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc; 2001. p. 73–140.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Haebara T. Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Jpn Psychol Res. 1980;22(3):144–9.CrossRef Haebara T. Equating logistic ability scales by a weighted least squares method. Jpn Psychol Res. 1980;22(3):144–9.CrossRef
22.
23.
go back to reference Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.CrossRefPubMed Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Harmonization of delirium severity instruments: a comparison of the DRS-R-98, MDAS, and CAM-S using item response theory
Authors
Alden L. Gross
Doug Tommet
Madeline D’Aquila
Eva Schmitt
Edward R. Marcantonio
Benjamin Helfand
Sharon K. Inouye
Richard N. Jones
for the BASIL Study Group
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0552-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2018 Go to the issue