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.

The RUDAS is at least as accurate as the MMSE, and does not appear to be influenced by language, education or gender. The high positive likelihood ratio for the RUDAS makes it particularly useful for ruling-in disease.

While substantial differences among the clock scoring methods were evident in our sample, the accuracy of each was modest at best. Unless further studies in relevant settings suggest otherwise, we caution on the use of clock drawing alone to screen for dementia.

Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse outcomes in older people hospitalized with acute illness. An increased awareness of its impact may alert clinicians to screen for frailty.

In the acute care setting, the value of the Timed Up and Go lies in the inability to complete the test, and the reasons for this inability, rather than the time recorded.

The 6-item Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) is a simple, portable multicultural scale for detecting dementia. Items address executive function, praxis, gnosis, recent memory, and category fluency. It can be directly translated to other languages, without the need to change the structure or the format of any item. The RUDAS was administered to 151 consecutive, consenting, culturally diverse community-dwelling subjects of mean age 77 years, 72% of whom had an informant. Subjects were recruited from various clinics and healthcare programs. All were evaluated for cognitive impairment in a blinded manner by experienced clinicians in geriatric medicine. According to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder-IV criteria, 40% of the subjects were normal, 22% had cognitive impairment (not otherwise specified), and 38% had dementia; 84% of whom had questionable or mild dementia. In the primary analysis (normal subjects vs. those with definite dementia), the RUDAS accurately identified dementia, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97); at the published cut point of less than 23/30, the positive likelihood ratio (LR) for dementia diagnosis was 8.77, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.14. Additional analyses showed that the RUDAS performed less well when subjects with cognitive impairment (not dementia) were included. In all logistic regression models, the RUDAS was an independent predictor of dementia (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.79, primary analysis model), after adjusting for age, sex, years of education, and cultural diversity, none of which were independent predictors. Further studies are needed across the full spectrum of early dementia syndromes, and in additional ethnic minority groups.

These results suggest that the amplitude and rate of change of select adaptations in men aged 60-70 yr are independent of the mode of training (i.e., continuous or intermittent exercise) when the absolute training intensity and the total amount of work completed were similar.

Early dementia can be difficult to diagnose in older persons from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. The Folstein Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition (GPCOG) and the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS) were compared in 151 older, community‐dwelling persons. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate diagnostic accuracy, while logistic regression was used to evaluate the influence of age, gender, CALD status and years of education. All three instruments were equally accurate in predicting dementia (ROC area under curve 0.92–0.97, p > 0.05 for all comparisons). At the recommended cut‐offs, the RUDAS was best for ruling in dementia (positive LR = 8.77), while the GPCOG was best for ruling out dementia (negative LR = 0.03). All three instruments were influenced by concomitant depression. Whereas the MMSE was influenced by CALD status, the RUDAS and GPCOG were not. While the GPCOG combines participant and informant data, the RUDAS is a stand‐alone measure specifically designed for, and validated in, multicultural populations.