A new music therapy engagement scale for persons with dementia

Tan, Jane; Wee, Shiou‐Liang; Yeo, Pei Shi; Choo, Juliet; Ritholz, Michele Schnur; Yap, Philip

doi:10.1017/s1041610218000509

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence from earlier DCM-versions have shown well-being scores to vary due to level of cognitive impairment or dependency in the observed persons ( Brooker and Surr, 2006 ; Chaudhury et al, 2013 ). QUALIDEM-ILA ( Junge et al, 2020 ) and MTED ( Tan et al, 2019 ) did not vary with dementia severity. Apathy correlated negatively with engagement in EPWDS ( Jones et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Seven instruments measuring engagement in dementia met the inclusion criteria; Menorah Park Engagement Scale 2 (MPES, Judge et al, 2000 ), Observational Measurement of Engagement (OME, Cohen-Mansfield et al, 2009 ), Music in Dementia Assessment Scales (MiDAS, McDermott et al, 2015 ), Video coding – Incorporating Observed Emotion (VC-IOE, Jones et al, 2015 ), Engagement of a Person with Dementia Scale (EPWDS, Jones et al, 2018 ), Ethographic and Laban-Inspired Coding System of Engagement (ELICSE, Perugia et al, 2018b ), and Music Therapy Engagement Scale for Dementia (MTED, Tan et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six of the nine scales used factor analysis to investigate structural validity. Except for OERS ( Lawton et al, 1996 ) and QUALIDEM-ILA ( Junge et al, 2020 ), all scales are at risk of bias due to small samples (<100, GCWBT; Gross et al, 2015 ; SM-GWWBT; Lokon et al, 2019 ; MiDAS; McDermott et al, 2014 ; MTED; Tan et al, 2019 ). Use of repeated (dependent) observations of the same individuals violates statistical assumptions of these methods as well (MiDAS; McDermott et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No instruments reported cross-cultural validity. Nevertheless, instruments were developed in several different countries (see Supplementary Table 2 ), and eight reported the ethnicity of the included participants (BEAM; Casey et al, 2014 ; AwareCare; Clare et al, 2012 ; OME; Cohen-Mansfield et al, 2009 ; GCWBT; Kinney and Rentz, 2005 ; MAX; Magai et al, 2002 ; MiDAS; McDermott et al, 2014 ; MTED; Tan et al, 2019 ; ACT; Wood et al, 2005 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…MiDAS strength is the inclusion of the target group in the development ( McDermott et al, 2015 ), but needs further investigation of psychometric properties and is hampered by low intra-rater reliability ( McDermott et al, 2014 ). MTED appear to be a good option when evaluating engagement in clinical music therapy processes, but the scale is not intended for evaluating intervention effect ( Tan et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Assessing Momentary Well-Being in People Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review of Observational Instruments

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimizing the possibility to lead good lives is at the core of treatment and care for people with dementia. This may be monitored by assessing well-being and quality of life. However, cognitive impairment following dementia may complicate recall-based assessment with questionnaires, and proxy-ratings from family-caregivers do not correspond well to self-reports. Thus, using observational measures represents a potentially advanced option. Systematic reviews evaluating measurement properties, interpretability and feasibility of observational instruments assessing well-being in people living with dementia are lacking. Thus, this review performed systematic searches to find peer reviewed validated instruments of relevance in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and ProQuest. Twenty-two instruments assessing well-being were included for evaluation of measurement properties based on the systematic approach of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The evaluation included risk of bias on study level, and assessment of measurement properties on instrument level including content validity, construct validity, structural validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance, cross-cultural validity, measurement error and inter-rater/intra-rater/test–retest reliability and responsiveness. Additionally, the feasibility and interpretability of the measures were evaluated. No single instrument could be recommended based on existing publications. Thus, we provide general recommendations about further assessment and development of these instruments. Finally, we describe the most promising instruments and offer guidance with respect to their implementation and use in clinical and research contexts.

show abstract