Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) scores compared with scores from five rating scales
Frederiksen K, Tariot P, De Jonghe E.. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1996-03-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective To compare mandated Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) ratings of behavior, function, mood, communication, and cognition to ratings of these domains using analogous research instruments. Design Cross-sectional correlational study of criterion-related validity. Setting Three nursing homes in Rochester, New York.
Key findings
- Design Cross-sectional correlational study of criterion-related validity.
- Setting Three nursing homes in Rochester, New York.
- Participants Fifty-two nursing home residents.
- Measurements Nursing home staff completed the MDS+ for each subject.
Why it matters
This study compared Minimum Data Set Plus ratings of behavior, function, mood, communication and cognition with five other rating scales in nursing home residents. It is about the validity of assessment tools, not about treating, curing or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 46/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 44 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 46 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) |
| Journal's citation record | 3 / 4 | Journal of the American Geriatrics Society: journal h-index 344 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 1996 — 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 | 5 / 7 | Cited 165 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 2 / 5 | 5.2 citations a year over 32 year(s) since 1996 |
| Impact for its field and year | 4 / 6 | Cited 16.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 1 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 1 / 4 | Cited 6 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Erik De Jonghe holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Rochester Medicine: institution h-index 953 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 8600202) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 44 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 46 out of 100. |
| Total | 46 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it. The PubMed abstract is free.
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
Frederiksen, K., Tariot, P., & De Jonghe, E. (1996). Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) scores compared with scores from five rating scales. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00920.x
Vancouver
Frederiksen K, Tariot P, De Jonghe E. Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) scores compared with scores from five rating scales. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1996. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00920.x. PMID: 8600202.
BibTeX
@article{frederiksen1996-8600202,
author = {Frederiksen, K. and Tariot, P. and De Jonghe, E.},
title = {{Minimum Data Set Plus (MDS+) scores compared with scores from five rating scales}},
journal = {Journal of the American Geriatrics Society},
year = {1996},
doi = {10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00920.x},
pmid = {8600202},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00920.x}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
1 study in the alzhub library lists this one in its references.