Background: There are almost no validated tools in German that assess dementia knowledge, attitude toward dementia, and confidence in the general population. Objective: Translation and validation of the German version of the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (DKAT2), the Dementia Attitude Scale (DAS), and the Confidence in Dementia Scale (CODE). Methods: Instruments were translated into German and adapted for the general public. A convenience sample of 263 persons was recruited via an online platform. Validation of the tools’ psychometric properties consisted of an assessment of its reliability (internal consistency and 4-week test-retest reliability of a subgroup with n = 110), an analysis of its construct validity through principal component analysis and known-group analysis, convergent validity, and an item analysis for DKAT2-D. This study used the STROBE checklist for reporting. Results: Acceptable to excellent internal reliability was found for DAS-D (α= 0.90), DKAT2-D (α= 0.78), and CODE-D (α= 0.93). The principal component analysis confirmed the two-factor model for the DAS-D as well as the one-factor solution for CODE-D. Intra-class correlation coefficient between the first and the 4-week retest was good (CODE-D: 0.897; 0.849–0.929) to excellent (DKAT2-D: 0.918; 0.879–0.945 and DAS-D: 0.940; 0.910–0.960). Known-group analysis revealed that DAS-D, DKAT-D, and CODE-D could distinguish between individuals with or without experience with people with dementia and with or without participation in a dementia course. Conclusion: The German versions DAS-D, DKAT2-D, and CODE-D are reliable and valid tools to measure knowledge, attitude, and confidence in dementia in the German-speaking general population.

Background: Assessing dementia knowledge is critical for developing and improving effective interventions. There are many different tools to assess dementia knowledge, but only one has been validated in German so far. Objective: To validate two tools for assessing dementia knowledge—the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Scale (DKAS-D) and the Knowledge in Dementia Scale (KIDE-D) for the German general population—and compare their psychometric properties with the Dementia Knowledge Assessment Tool 2 (DKAT2-D). Methods: A convenience sample of 272 participants completed online surveys. Analyses included internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity through the known-groups method, retest-reliability with a subgroup of n = 88, and floor and ceiling effects. This study used the STROBE checklist. Results: Internal consistency was acceptable for DKAT2-D (α= 0.780), very good for DKAS-D (α= 0.873), and poor for KIDE-D (α= 0.506). Construct validity was confirmed for all questionnaires. Retest-reliability was good for DKAT2-D (0.886; 0.825–0.926) and KIDE-D (0.813; 0.714–0.878), while it was great for DKAS-D (0.928; 0.891–0.953). Trends toward ceiling effects were observed for DKAT2-D and KIDE-D, but not for DKAS-D. The principal component analysis did not reveal a coherent structure for DKAT2-D or KIDE-D, while the confirmatory factor analysis proposed the removal of 5 items for DKAS-D resulting in the shortened DKAS20-D, which had nearly identical properties. Conclusion: Both DKAS-D and its shortened version, DKAS20-D, are reliable instruments for evaluating programs intended for the general population, as they were found to be convincing in all aspects.