Home › Research › Risk factors
Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale
Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S.. Psychiatry research, 1991-08-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
This article presents evidence for the reliability and construct validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). Conceptually, apathy is defined as lack of motivation not attributable to diminished level of consciousness, cognitive impairment, or emotional distress. Operationally, the AES treats apathy as a psychological dimension defined by simultaneous deficits in the overt behavioral, cognitive, and emotional concomitants of goal-directed behavior. Three versions of the AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated for 123 subjects, ages 53-85, meeting research criteria for right or left hemisphere stroke, probable Alzheimer's disease, major depression, or well elderly control. Multiple forms of reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater) were satisfactory. Several types of validity evidence are presented for each version of the scale, including the following: ability of the AES to discriminate between groups according to mean levels of apathy, discriminability of apathy ratings from standard measures of depression and anxiety, convergent validity between the three versions of the scale, and predictive validity measures derived from observing subjects' play with novelty toys and videogames. Guidelines for the administration of the AES are presented, along with suggestions for potential applications of the scale to clinical and research questions.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Marin, R. S., Biedrzycki, R. C., & Firinciogullari, S. (1991). Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry research. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v
Vancouver
Marin RS, Biedrzycki RC, Firinciogullari S. Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale. Psychiatry research. 1991. doi:10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v. PMID: 1754629.
BibTeX
@article{marin1991-1754629,
author = {Marin, R. S. and Biedrzycki, R. C. and Firinciogullari, S.},
title = {{Reliability and validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale}},
journal = {Psychiatry research},
year = {1991},
doi = {10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v},
pmid = {1754629},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v}
}
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.
Key findings
- Operationally, the AES treats apathy as a psychological dimension defined by simultaneous deficits in the overt behavioral, cognitive, and emotional concomitants of goal-directed behavior.
- Three versions of the AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated for 123 subjects, ages 53-85, meeting research criteria for right or left hemisphere stroke, probable Alzheimer's disease, major depression, or well elderly control.
- Multiple forms of reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater) were satisfactory.
- Several types of validity evidence are presented for each version of the scale, including the following: ability of the AES to discriminate between groups according to mean levels of apathy, discriminability of apathy ratings from standard measures of depression and anxiety, convergent validity between the three versions of the scale, and predictive validity measures derived from observing subjects' play with novelty toys and videogames.
- Guidelines for the administration of the AES are presented, along with suggestions for potential applications of the scale to clinical and research questions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants123
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychiatry research) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 1991 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 123 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 1754629) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.