Observational studyThe Gerontologist2023
Clinimetric Evaluation of the Experienced Communication in Dementia Questionnaire.
Observational study in The Gerontologist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing communication in people with dementia : A scoping review of existing tools.Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2026Review
- Identifying older adults' communication support needs and preferences: a scoping review of measurement instruments.The Gerontologist · 2026Article
- Scoping Review of Communication Assessment Tools for Family Caregivers: Current Status, Clinical Translation Gaps, and Future Directions.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTools to measure self-perceived communication between persons with early-stage dementia and their caregivers are lacking. Therefore, we developed a questionnaire for Experienced Communication in Dementia (ECD) with a patient version (ECD-P) and a caregiver version (ECD-C), which contains items on (a) caregiver competence, (b) social communication, (c) communication difficulties, and (d) experienced emotions. This article describes the feasibility and clinimetric evaluation of this instrument. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA prospective observational cohort study was conducted with 57 dyads (community-dwelling person with dementia and primary caregiver). ECD-P, ECD-C, and measures on quality of life, caregiver burden, cognitive functioning, physical functioning, and functional independence were administered. After 2 weeks, the dyads filled out the ECD again. Feasibility (completion time and missing values per item), internal consistency (Cronbach's α), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICCs]), and construct validity (hypotheses testing with Spearman's r) were evaluated.
resultsMean completion time was 10 min per questionnaire. ICCs for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.67 to 0.78, except for ECD-P2 (ICC = 0.31). Internal consistency ranged from α = 0.75 to 0.82 for ECD-P1 and all parts of ECD-C, except for ECD-P2 (α = 0.66). Correlation coefficients for convergent validity ranged from r = 0.31 to 0.69 and correlation coefficients for divergent validity were r < 0.20 and statistically insignificant. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Pending future research, the ECD, except part ECD-P2, seems to be a promising tool to measure experienced communication between persons with early-stage dementia and their caregivers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.