ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease reports
Validation of Russian versions of the DKAS, DAS, and CODE scales: Measuring dementia knowledge, attitudes, and care confidence.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Dementia is one of the main public health challenges worldwide. To evaluate awareness programs, it is necessary to use validated scales, such as the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS), the Dementia Attitude Scale (DAS), and the Confidence in Dementia Care Scale (CODE), none of which exist in Russian. Objective: The present study aims to translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the DKAS-R, DAS-R, and CODE-R within the Russian-speaking population. Methods: A cross-sectional online study was conducted using convenience sampling (N = 533). Validation included assessing reliability (internal consistency and four-week test-retest reliability of a subgroup of 130 participants), analyzing structural validity through confirmatory factor analysis, and assessing construct validity through the known-groups method. Additionally, an item analysis was conducted. The STROBE checklist was used to report this study. Results: Acceptable to excellent internal reliability was found for DKAS-R (α/ω = 0.81), DKAS-R20 (α/ω = 0.81), DAS-R (α = 0.81, ω = 0.84), DAS-R14 (α/ω = 0.84), and CODE-R (α = 0.89, ω = 0.88). The proposed factor structures were confirmed after minor modifications (item reductions and correlated residuals). The known-groups analysis revealed that all scales could distinguish between individuals with or without experience with people with dementia and with or without participation in a dementia course. Retest-reliability was moderate for DAS-R/DAS-R14, good for the DKAS-R/DKAS-R20 and CODE-R. Conclusions: This study provides the first psychometric validation of the DKAS-R, DAS-R, and CODE-R for the Russian-speaking populations. After minor adaptations, all three scales demonstrated robust structure and reliability, supporting their use in research.
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.