Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 51 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Global staging measures for dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) assess the influence of cognitive loss on the ability to conduct everyday activities and represent the "ultimate test" of efficacy for antidementia drug trials. They provide information about clinically meaningful function and behavior and are less affected by the "floor" and "ceiling" effects commonly associated with psychometric tests. The Washington University Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) is a global scale developed to clinically denote the presence of DAT and stage its severity. The clinical protocol incorporates semistructured interviews with the patient and informant to obtain information necessary to rate the subject's cognitive performance in six domains: memory, orientation, judgment and problem solving, community affairs, home and hobbies, and personal care. The CDR has been standardized for multicenter use, including the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study, and interrater reliability has been established. Criterion validity for both the global CDR and scores on individual domains has been demonstrated, and the CDR also has been validated neuropathologically, particularly for the presence or absence of dementia. Standardized training protocols are available. Although not well suited as a brief screening tool for population surveys of dementia because the protocol depends on sufficient time to conduct interviews, the CDR has become widely accepted in the clinical setting as a reliable and valid global assessment measure for DAT.

Why it matters

Describes the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), a scale that uses interviews with the patient and an informant to rate six areas, such as memory and personal care, and stage dementia of the Alzheimer type. The authors report established reliability and validity, but note it is not well suited as a brief screening tool for population surveys. The scale measures dementia; it does not treat it.

How this study scored 51/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence left out, no data; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 7 of 7; Citations per year 5 of 5; Impact for its field and year 2 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 4 of 4; Senior author's track record 4 of 4; Institution's track record 2 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 48 of the 95 points it could be judged on, which is 51 of 100. Total 51 of 100.48 of the 95 points we could judge = 51 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on strength of evidence, so that was left out: it earned 48 of the 95 points we could judge it on, which is 51 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International Psychogeriatrics)
Journal's citation record 2 / 4 International Psychogeriatrics: journal h-index 161 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence — / 5 No evidence rating recorded — left out of this score
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 1997 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited 7 / 7 Cited 1,641 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 5 / 5 52.9 citations a year over 31 year(s) since 1997
Impact for its field and year 2 / 6 Cited 1.1× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 4 / 4 Cited 385 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 4 / 4 Last-listed author John C. Morris: h-index 209 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 2 / 3 Washington University in St. Louis: institution h-index 1,962 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 9447441)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 48 / 95 Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 95 points we could judge it on is 51 out of 100.
Total 51 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Morris, J. C. (1997). Clinical Dementia Rating: A Reliable and Valid Diagnostic and Staging Measure for Dementia of the Alzheimer Type. International Psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610297004870

Vancouver

Morris JC. Clinical Dementia Rating: A Reliable and Valid Diagnostic and Staging Measure for Dementia of the Alzheimer Type. International Psychogeriatrics. 1997. doi:10.1017/s1041610297004870. PMID: 9447441.

BibTeX

@article{morris1997-9447441,
  author  = {Morris, John C.},
  title   = {{Clinical Dementia Rating: A Reliable and Valid Diagnostic and Staging Measure for Dementia of the Alzheimer Type}},
  journal = {International Psychogeriatrics},
  year    = {1997},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1041610297004870},
  pmid    = {9447441},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610297004870}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “prevalence”

1,224 studies in the library carry the topic tag “prevalence”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,224 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →