Advertisement

Neurological Sciences

, Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 2081–2088 | Cite as

Validation study of the Italian version of Communication Activities of the Daily Living (CADL 2) as an ecologic cognitive assessment measure in older subjects

  • Martina PigliautileEmail author
  • Francesca Chiesi
  • Caterina Primi
  • Silvia Inglese
  • Daniela Mari
  • David Simoni
  • Enrico Mossello
  • Patrizia Mecocci
Original Article
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Communication can be affected by age related cognitive decline and mental deterioration. The second edition of the Communication Activities of the Daily Living (CADL 2) appears as an interesting ecological assessment tool of cognitive functions in old age.

Objective

The aim of this work is to (1) develop an Italian version of CADL 2, (2) to test its psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity, and (3) to measure CADL 2 discriminative capacity between cognitively healthy and cognitively impaired older subjects.

Method

One hundred and eleven subjects were enrolled (36 M; 75 F, age 80, 80.85 ± 7 years, education 9.3 ± 4.7 years). The CADL 2 was administered together with a standard neuropsychological battery.

Results

The CADL 2 showed good reliability and correlates with all the cognitive evaluation tests. The CADL 2’s area under the curve was equal to 0.80, index of good diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

The CADL 2 is an appropriate assessment tool for communication skills in aging.

Keywords

Ecological evaluation Communication Daily life Assessment Oldest old Aging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the physicians and the psychologist who collaborated with the Gerontological and Geriatric Session at the Department of the University of Medicine in Perugia. Thanks also to the speech therapist Dr. Simone Timi who contributed to collect informations on CADL 2.

Compliance with ethical standards

The present study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. All participants gave their informed consent to participate.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Richards M, Deary IJ (2005) A life course approach to cognitive reserve: a model for cognitive aging and development? Ann Neurol 58:617–622.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.20637 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stern Y (2012) Cognitive reserve in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol 11(11):1006–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70191-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ansado J, Marsolais Y, Methqal I, Alary F, Joanette Y (2013) The adaptive aging brain: evidence from the preservation of communication abilities with age. Eur J Neurosci 37:1887–1895.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.12252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shafto MA, Tyler LK (2014) Language in the aging brain: the network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science 346(6209):583–587.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254404 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nussbaum JF, Baringer DK (2000) Message production across the life span: communication and aging. Communication Theory 10(2):200–209.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00189.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hubbard G, Cook A, Tester S, Downs M (2002) Beyond words: older people with dementia using and interpreting nonverbal behaviour. J Aging Stud 16(2):155–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0890-4065(02)00041-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vigorelli P (ed) (2004) La conversazione possibile con il malato Alzheimer, vol 48. FrancoAngeliGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrne K, Orange JB (2005) Conceptualizing communication enhancement in dementia for family caregivers using the WHO-ICF framework. Adv Speech Lang Pathol 7(4):187–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040500337062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings L (2016) Pragmatic disorders and social functioning: a lifespan perspective. In: Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. Springer, Cham, pp 179–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sobhani Rad D (2014) A review on adult pragmatic assessments. Iran J Neurol 13(3):113–118Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bambini V, Arcara G, Aiachini B, Cattani B, Dichiarante ML, Moro A, Cappa SF, Pistarini C (2017) Assessing functional communication: validation of the Italian versions of the Communication Outcome after Stroke (COAST) scales for speakers and caregivers. Aphasiology 31(3):332–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salthouse TA, Atkinson TM, Berish DE (2003) Executive functioning as a potential mediator of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. J Exp Psych General 132(4):566–594.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pigliautile M, Tiberio L, Mecocci P, Federici S (2012) The geriatrician. Assistive technology assessment handbook; (Rehabilitation science in practice series). CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 269–299Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zanini S, Bryan K, De Luca G, Bava A (2005) The effects of age and education on pragmatic features of verbal communication: evidence from the Italian version of the Right Hemisphere Language Battery (I-RHLB). Aphasiology 19(12):1107–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02687030500268977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salthouse TA (2010) Selective review of cognitive aging. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 16(5):754–760.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pigliautile M, Ricci M, Ercolani S, Radicchi R, Mangialasche F, Monastero R et al (2012) Studio di validazione dell’ACE-R in lingua italiana nella popolazione degli young-old e degli old-old. G GERONTOL 60:134–141Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sbordone R J (1996) Ecological validity: some critical issues for the neuropsychologistGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Franzen MD, Wilhelm KL (1996) Conceptual foundations of ecological validity in neuropsychological assessment. In: Sbordone RJ, Long CJ (eds) Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing. Gr Press/St Lucie Press, Inc, Delray Beach, pp 91–112Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spooner DM, Pachana NA (2006) Ecological validity in neuropsychological assessment: a case for greater consideration in research with neurologically intact populations. Arch Clin Neuropsy 21(4):327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holland AL, Frattali C, & Fromm D (1999) Communication activities of daily living: CADL-2. Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D et al (2011) The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 7(3):270–279.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H et al (2011) The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 7(3):263–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holland AL (1980) CADL communicative abilities in daily living: a test of functional communication for aphasic adults. University Park PressGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pizzamiglio L, Laicardi L, Appicciafuoco A et al (1984) Capacità comunicative di pazienti afasici in situazioni di vita quotidiana: Adattamento italiano. Arch Psicol Neurol Psichiatr XLV:187–210Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evers A, Muñiz J, Hagemeister C, Høstmælingen A et al (2013) Assessing the quality of tests: revision of the EFPA review model. Psicothema 25(3):283–291Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubenstein LZ, Stuck AE (2012) In: Sinclair AJ, Morley JE, Vellas B (eds) Multidimensional geriatric assessment. In Pathy’s principles and practice of geriatric medicine.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119952930.ch112 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Introduction. In: McDowell I, Newell C (eds) Measuring health–a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–46Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNamara P, Durso R (2003) Pragmatic communication skills in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Brain Lang 84(3):414–423.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00558-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bosco FM, Parola A, Angeleri R, Galetto V, Zettin M, Gabbatore I (2018) Improvement of communication skills after traumatic brain injury: the efficacy of the cognitive pragmatic treatment program using the communicative activities of daily living. Arch Clin Neuropsy 33(7):875–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rohde A, Worrall L, Godecke E, O’Halloran R, Farrell A, Massey M (2018) Diagnosis of aphasia in stroke populations: a systematic review of language tests. PLoS One 13(3):e0194143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brandenburg C, Worrall L, Copland D, Rodriguez A (2017) An exploratory investigation of the daily talk time of people with non-fluent aphasia and non-aphasic peers. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 19(4):418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rofes A, Capasso R, Miceli G (2015) Verb production tasks in the measurement of communicative abilities in aphasia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 37(5):483–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marshall RS, Laures-Gore J, DuBay M, Williams T, Bryant D (2015) Unilateral forced nostril breathing and aphasia—exploring unilateral forced nostril breathing as an adjunct to aphasia treatment: a case series. J Altern Complement Med 21(2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Persad C, Wozniak L, Kostopoulos E (2013) Retrospective analysis of outcomes from two intensive comprehensive aphasia programs. Top Stroke Rehabil 20(5):388–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rousseaux M, Sève A, Vallet M, Pasquier F, Mackowiak-Cordoliani MA (2010) An analysis of communication in conversation in patients with dementia. Neuropsych 48(13):3884–3890.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.09.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Medicine, Section of Gerontology and GeriatricsUniversity of PerugiaPerugiaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience, Psychology, Drug, and Child’s Health (NEUROFARBA), Section of PsychologyUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.GeriatricsFondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoMilanItaly
  4. 4.Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Research Unit of Medicine of AgingUniversity of FlorenceFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations