Home › Research › Clinical safety
The Lille apathy rating scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: validation in Parkinson's disease
Sockeel P, Dujardin K, Devos D, Denève C, Destée A, Defebvre L.. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry, 2006-05-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Apathy is usually defined as reduced interest and participation in various activities. It is a frequent consequence of neurological and psychiatric disorders. Although various scoring methods have been proposed, there is a lack of validated, standardised instruments for detecting apathy and assessing its severity. Objective To develop an apathy rating scale using a structured standardised interview capable of distinguishing between the condition's various features. Methods The Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) is based on a structured interview. It includes 33 items, divided into nine domains. Responses are scored on a dichotomous scale. The participants used to validate the scale consisted of 159 patients with probable Parkinson's disease and 58 healthy control subjects. The Marin Apathy Scale, the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale were also administered. Results Principal component analysis showed that the LARS probed a single construct which forms the root of an oblique factor structure reflecting four dimensions: intellectual curiosity, self awareness, emotion, and action initiation. The main psychometric properties of the LARS (internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability) were satisfactory. Concurrent validity was evaluated by reference to the Marin scale and to judgements provided by expert clinicians. Conclusions Standard validity indices showed that the LARS is sensitive and capable of distinguishing between apathy and depression. As a screening tool, the scale is able to support dichotomous judgements accurately and, when greater measurement sensitivity is required, also determine the severity of apathy within a four category classification.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Sockeel, P., Dujardin, K., Devos, D., Denève, C., Destée, A., & Defebvre, L. (2006). The Lille apathy rating scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: validation in Parkinson's disease. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.075929
Vancouver
Sockeel P, Dujardin K, Devos D, Denève C, Destée A, Defebvre L. The Lille apathy rating scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: validation in Parkinson's disease. Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. 2006. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2005.075929. PMID: 16614016.
BibTeX
@article{sockeel2006-16614016,
author = {Sockeel, P. and Dujardin, K. and Devos, D. and Denève, C. and Destée, A. and Defebvre, L.},
title = {{The Lille apathy rating scale (LARS), a new instrument for detecting and quantifying apathy: validation in Parkinson's disease}},
journal = {Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1136/jnnp.2005.075929},
pmid = {16614016},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.075929}
}
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
- Results Principal component analysis showed that the LARS probed a single construct which forms the root of an oblique factor structure reflecting four dimensions: intellectual curiosity, self awareness, emotion, and action initiation.
- Conclusions Standard validity indices showed that the LARS is sensitive and capable of distinguishing between apathy and depression.
Study details
- Participants159
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter 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 (Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry) |
| 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 | 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 159 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16614016) |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.