Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32925068›Full record

ReviewJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2022

Psychometric Properties of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory: A Review.

Toni Saari, Anne Koivisto, Taina Hintsa, Tuomo Hänninen, Ilona Hallikainen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Efficacy of transcranial alternating current stimulation on cognitive function in patients with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Case Reports in the Integration of Technology with Cognitive Rehabilitation for Individuals with Memory Concerns and Their Care Partners.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Toni SaariUniversity of Eastern Finland, Neurology, Kuopio, Finland.
Anne KoivistoUniversity of Eastern Finland, Neurology, Kuopio, Finland.
Taina HintsaUniversity of Eastern Finland, School of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Joensuu, Finland.
Tuomo HänninenKuopio University Hospital, Neurology, Kuopio, Finland.
Ilona HallikainenUniversity of Eastern Finland, Neurology, Kuopio, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuropsychiatric symptoms cause a significant burden to individuals with neurocognitive disorders and their families. Insights into the clinical associations, neurobiology, and treatment of these symptoms depend on informant questionnaires, such as the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). As with any scale, the utility of the NPI relies on its psychometric properties, but the NPI faces unique challenges related to its skip-question and scoring formats. In this narrative review, we examined the psychometric properties of the NPI in a framework including properties pertinent to construct validation, and health-related outcome measurement in general. We found that aspects such as test-retest and inter-rater reliability are major strengths of the NPI in addition to its flexible and relatively quick administration. These properties are desired in clinical trials. However, the reported properties appear to cover only some of the generally examined psychometric properties, representing perhaps necessary but insufficient reliability and validity evidence for the NPI. The psychometric data seem to have significant gaps, in part because small sample sizes in the relevant studies have precluded more comprehensive analyses. Regarding construct validity, only one study has examined structural validity with the NPI subquestions. Measurement error was not assessed in the reviewed studies. For future validation, we recommend using data from all subquestions, collecting larger samples, paying specific attention to construct validity and formulating hypotheses a priori. Because the NPI is an outcome measure of interest in clinical trials, examining measurement error could be of practical importance.

Indexed as

DementiaHumansNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesAlzheimer’s diseasebehavioral and psychological symptoms of dementiadementiameasurementNeuropsychiatric Inventoryneuropsychiatric symptomsreliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID32925068
PMCPMC9108559

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.