The clinical utility, reliability and validity of the Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test-Third Edition (RBMT-3) in Hong Kong older adults with or without cognitive impairments

This study examined the use of the Hong Kong version of the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test-Third Edition (RBMT-3) for older adults, and by presenting the optimal cut-off scores for patients with cognitive impairments, and for a group of peers who have functional everyday cognition. Hundred older a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inNeuropsychological rehabilitation Vol. 29; no. 1; pp. 144 - 159
Main Authors Fong, K. N. K., Lee, K. K. L., Tsang, Z. P. Y., Wan, J. Y. H., Zhang, Y. Y., Lau, A. F. C.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Routledge 02.01.2019
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study examined the use of the Hong Kong version of the Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test-Third Edition (RBMT-3) for older adults, and by presenting the optimal cut-off scores for patients with cognitive impairments, and for a group of peers who have functional everyday cognition. Hundred older adults residing in community dwellings were recruited from three non-government organisations and completed the RBMT-3: 29 patients with mild to moderate dementia, 34 persons at risk for MCI, and 37 matched older adults with everyday functional cognition for a healthy control group (NC). The test has excellent inter-rater (ICC [2, 1] = 0.997), intra-rater (ICC [3, 1] = 0), and parallel version (ICC [3, 1] = 0.990) reliabilities, as well as satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.643-0.832). The scores of the MCI group were significantly lower than those of NC group in four subtests. The optimal cut-off scaled scores of ≤ 41.5, ≤ 102.5, and ≤ 131.5 are suggested for the RBMT-3 to discriminate between patients with mild and moderate dementia, mild dementia and MCI, and MCI and NC, with sensitivities 73%, 100% and 94.1%, respectively. This version is useful to differentiate those with or without risk of cognitive impairments.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0960-2011
1464-0694
DOI:10.1080/09602011.2016.1272467