It proved possible to set three goals within an acceptable time-frame, to involve patients in the goal-setting procedure, to set realistic goals, and to set goals within relevant domains. Based on clinical experiences, goal attainment scaling is less feasible for research when patients lack insight, or suffer from comorbidity or mood problems.

Background: Since evidence-based interventions are the standard, there is an urgent need for more information concerning individual ways of measuring clinically relevant outcomes of interventions in cognitive disorders such as dementia. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) seems to offer a meaningful outcome measure. Aim: To examine the applicability of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Methods: A systematic review was performed on the available literature on the clinimetric aspects and the feasibility of GAS when used as an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Eight databases were screened. Two authors independently reviewed all the data. Ten studies were included. Results: Mixed results were found for responsiveness, content validity, inter-rater reliability and construct/convergent validity. The involvement of patient and/or caregiver in the goal-setting procedure is possible and multiple domains can be implemented. The possibility to set at least 3 realistic goals per patient in less than 30 min is unclear and the need for involvement of a blinded assessor is not well established. Conclusion: GAS proved to be useful on important aspects of an outcome measure for psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders. Since other relevant aspects showed mixed results and the number of studies investigating the use of GAS in psychogeriatric patients with cognitive disorders is small, the evidence is not strong enough yet to state that GAS is an applicable outcome measure in this population.

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to examine the effectiveness of a low intensity outpatient cognitive rehabilitation programme for patients with acquired brain injury in the chronic phase. Twenty-seven patients with acquired brain injury (i.e., stroke, traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid haemorrhage; 52% male) with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 9.2) years and 25 relatives with a mean age of 48.8 (SD 8.8) years were recruited to the study. Mean time since injury in the patient group was 1.9 years (SD 2.0). The group programme consisted of 15 weekly sessions of 2.5 hours and included cognitive strategy training, social skills training, and psycho-education. Patients also received homework. Relatives were invited to attend twice. Repeated measurements were taken: prior to treatment (baseline, T0); directly after treatment (T1, 21 weeks); and at follow-up (T2, 45 weeks). Primary outcome measures were individualised goals (GAS), cognitive failures (CFQ), and quality of life (SA-SIP). Patients did improve significantly on individual goals (p < .05) between T0 and T1 and the level of attainment remained stable between T1 and T2. Goals were mostly set in the cognitive and behavioural domains. There were no significant differences between the measurements (T0-T1-T2) on the CFQ and the SA-SIP. The programme had a positive effect on the individual goals set by the patients. However, this did not result in a higher participation level or a better quality of life. This may be due to the low intensity and short duration of the programme.

Background: Cognitive impairment is mostly regarded as the core symptom of dementia, but several other domains (such as daily functioning) are equally relevant to assess the severity of dementia. The relationship between these domains is unclear. The Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is a relatively unexplored instrument in people with dementia, measuring severity by direct observation. Objective: To study the relationship between the AMPS and scores on several commonly used outcome measures for the assessment of dementia severity, and to examine the possible influence of neuropsychiatric symptoms on these relationships in patients with cognitive disorders. Methods: Cross-sectional data of 118 patients with cognitive disorders were used; data on cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination, MMSE; CAMCOG), global severity (Global Deterioration Scale, GDS), daily life functioning (Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, IADL), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory, NPI) were collected and analyzed using correlation and regression analyses. Different combinations of the severity measures were tested for their ability to predict the AMPS process ability scores. Results: Scores on the MMSE, CAMCOG and GDS were moderately associated with the AMPS process ability score. These measures explained between 27 and 44% of the variance in the AMPS score. The presence of apathy influenced the association between the cognitive measures and the AMPS score. Conclusion: Commonly used measures of dementia severity are only moderately associated with observation of performance on daily activities. This underlines the need for direct observation of daily activities in dementia patients. This relationship between several approaches of assessing dementia severity needs further study.

The Telephone Interview Cognitive Status (TICS) is an instrument to screen for dementia in older persons by telephone. Although the psychometric properties of the TICS have been studied in various countries, the quality of the Dutch version of the TICS was yet unknown. This paper presents the Dutch version of the TICS and reports on its reliability and validity among 51 patients of Maastricht University Hospital, The Netherlands. The Pearson and intra-class correlations for test-retest reliability were 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. The Pearson and intra-class correlations for inter-rater reliability were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were studied in relation to the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE, cut-off point 23/ 24) and the diagnosis of dementia as assessed according to DSM-IV criteria. When using the TICS cut-off point of 26/27, the coefficients for sensitivity and specificity were at least 0.80. The percentages ROC under the curve were 90% and 93% with the MMSE and the diagnosis dementia as criterion, respectively. We conclude that the Dutch version of the TICS is an acceptable instrument for screening for dementia in older persons, particularly when face-to-face contact is not possible.