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 59 out of 100. Getting a diagnosis

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective To develop and validate a simple method for detecting dementia that is valid across cultures, portable and easily administered by primary health care clinicians. Design Culture and Health Advisory Groups were used in Stage 1 to develop culturally fair cognitive items. In Stage 2, clinical testing of 42 items was conducted in a multicultural sample of consecutive new referrals to the geriatric medicine outpatient clinic at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia (n = 166). In Stage 3, the predictive accuracy of items was assessed in a random sample of community-dwelling elderly persons stratified by language background and cognitive diagnosis and matched for sex and age (n = 90). Measurements A research psychologist administered all cognitive items, using interpreters when needed. Each patient was comprehensively assessed by one of three geriatricians, who ordered relevant investigations, and implemented a standardized assessment of cognitive domains. The geriatricians also collected demographic information, and administered other functional and cognitive measures. DSM-IV criteria were used to assign cognitive diagnoses. Item validity and weights were assessed using frequency and logistic regression analyses. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine overall predictive accuracy of the RUDAS and the best cut-point for detecting cognitive impairment. Results The 6-item RUDAS assesses multiple cognitive domains including memory, praxis, language, judgement, drawing and body orientation. It appears not to be affected by gender, years of education, differential performance factors and preferred language. The area under the ROC curve for the RUDAS was 0.94 (95% CI 0.87-0.98). At a cut-point of 23 (maximum score of 30), sensitivity and specificity were 89% and 98%, respectively. Inter-rater (0.99) and test-retest (0.98) reliabilities were very high. Conclusions The 6-item RUDAS is portable and tests multiple cognitive domains. It is easily interpreted to other languages, and appears to be culturally fair. However, further validation is needed in other settings, and in longitudinal studies to determine its sensitivity to change in cognitive function over time.

Key findings

Why it matters

This study developed and tested the RUDAS, a 6-item cognitive assessment scale designed to detect dementia fairly across cultures. It concerns a screening and assessment tool, not treating, curing, or preventing dementia.

Study details

How this study scored 59/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record 2 of 4; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 6 of 7; Citations per year 4 of 5; Impact for its field and year 2 of 6; Cited by studies here 3 of 6; Still being cited 3 of 4; Senior author's track record 2 of 4; Institution's track record 1 of 3; Multi-centre collaboration 1 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. Total 59 of 100.59 of 100 points earned41 not earned

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a longitudinal study following the same people over time. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

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 7 / 12 A longitudinal study following the same people over time
Strength of evidence 3 / 5 Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2004 — older than 20 years, still counted
Sample size 2 / 4 166 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 6 / 7 Cited 510 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 4 / 5 21.2 citations a year over 24 year(s) since 2004
Impact for its field and year 2 / 6 Cited 2.7× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 3 / 6 Cited by 16 other studies in this library
Still being cited 3 / 4 Cited 163 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 2 / 4 Last-listed author Hugh Grant Dickson: h-index 26 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record 1 / 3 UNSW Sydney: institution h-index 1,101 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration 1 / 3 OpenAlex lists 2 institution(s) in 1 country
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15190994)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Total 59 / 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

Storey, J. E., Rowland, J. T., Basic, D., Conforti, D. A., & Dickson, H. G. (2004). The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610204000043

Vancouver

Storey JE, Rowland JT, Basic D, Conforti DA, Dickson HG. The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale. International psychogeriatrics. 2004. doi:10.1017/s1041610204000043. PMID: 15190994.

BibTeX

@article{storey2004-15190994,
  author  = {Storey, J. E. and Rowland, J. T. and Basic, D. and Conforti, D. A. and Dickson, H. G.},
  title   = {{The Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale}},
  journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
  year    = {2004},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1041610204000043},
  pmid    = {15190994},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610204000043}
}

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

16 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references. Showing the 8 highest-scoring.

Related studies in Getting a diagnosis

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 Getting a diagnosis

See all studies in Getting a diagnosis →