Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments
Araya Dimtsu Assfaw, Chengjie Xiong, Krista L Moulder, John C Morris. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2026-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Agreement for the global CDR was moderate (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47-0.59). CDR-SB demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73). Telephone CDR-SB scores averaged 0.40 points higher than in-person scores, with wide limits of agreement. Sensitivity was 64.2% and specificity 91.9%. Telephone CDR-SB shows moderate concordance with in-person CDR-SB but shows consistent score inflation, which may limit clinical staging utility.
Key findings
- Agreement for the global CDR was moderate (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47-0.59).
- CDR-SB demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73).
- Telephone CDR-SB scores averaged 0.40 points higher than in-person scores, with wide limits of agreement.
- Sensitivity was 64.2% and specificity 91.9%.
- Telephone CDR-SB shows moderate concordance with in-person CDR-SB but shows consistent score inflation, which may limit clinical staging utility.
Study details
- Participants1,140
- Effect size64.2%; 91.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 63/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 63 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,140 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 42316378) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 35 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 63 out of 100. |
| Total | 63 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
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
Assfaw, A. D., Xiong, C., Moulder, K. L., & Morris, J. C. (2026). Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71601
Vancouver
Assfaw AD, Xiong C, Moulder KL, Morris JC. Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2026. doi:10.1002/alz.71601. PMID: 42316378.
BibTeX
@article{assfaw2026-42316378,
author = {Assfaw, Araya Dimtsu and Xiong, Chengjie and Moulder, Krista L and Morris, John C},
title = {{Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of telephone-derived Clinical Dementia Rating scores: A comparative analysis with in-person assessments}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/alz.71601},
pmid = {42316378},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71601}
}