SynthesisAmerican journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias
Development of the Observable Well-Being in Living With Dementia-Scale.
Synthesis in American journal of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Designing and validating a research questionnaire - Part 2.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Observable Well-being in Living with Dementia-Scale was developed to address conceptual and methodological issues in current observational scales for music therapy. Creative interventions may receive lowered scores, as existing instruments rely heavily on verbal behavior. Methods were (1) Systematic review of observational instruments: (2) field work with music therapy and sociable interactions to operationalize the items; (3) field testing assessing feasibility and preliminary psychometric properties; (4) focus groups with experts to investigate content validity; (5) final field test and revision. 2199 OWLS-ratings were conducted in 11 participants. Hypotheses of construct validity and responsiveness were supported (r = .33 -.65). Inter-rater reliability was good (84% agreement between coders, Cohen's Kappa = .82), and intra-rater reliability was excellent (98% agreement, Cohen's Kappa = .98). Focus groups with 8 experts supported the relevance of the items and suggested further refinements to increase comprehensiveness. The final field-tested OWLS showed improved inter-rater reliability and usability.
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.