Cinical research Reliability and validity of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in community-dwelling elderly

Abstract

IntroductionThe Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a widely used screening instrument in neuropsychological assessment and is a brief, individually administered measure. The present study aims to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the RBANS in community-dwelling elderly.Material and methodsAll subjects come from the community-dwelling elderly in Shanghai, China. They completed a questionnaire concerning demographic information, the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and the Chinese version of the RBANS. To test for internal consistency, Cronbach's α was calculated for all six RBANS indices. Correlations between each of the RBANS and MMSE subtests were conducted to measure the concurrent validity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to test the construct validity.ResultsThe final sample of participants included 236 community-dwelling elderly. The mean total score on the RBANS was 86.02 (±14.19). The RBANS total score showed strong internal consistency (r = 0.806), and the coefficient α value for each of the RBANS scales ranged from 0.142 to 0.727. The total RBANS score was highly correlated with that of the MMSE (r = 0.594, p<0.001), and the RBANS subtests also demonstrated strong correlations with most of the MMSE subtests. The results of the CFA indicated an acceptable fit between the Chinese version of the RBANS and the original.ConclusionsThe Chinese version of the RBANS had relatively good reliability and validity in a community-dwelling elderly sample. It may be a useful screening instrument for conducting cognitive assessments in community-dwelling elderly.

Validation of the Sinhala version of the Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS)

“…The values of reliability and validity were comparable or higher than those obtained from previous studies [6,7]. Although MMSE has some limitations, it was used to validate RBANS-S over other instruments like MoCA, as it has been repeatedly used in dementia studies, particularly as a "standard" easily communicated and cited tool [8].…”

“…The value for RBANS-S shows higher reliability coefficient than for the Chinese RBANS which is 0.806 [6]. The concurrent validity of RBANS-S was 0.793 which was significant (p=0.01) and corresponding value for the Chinese version of RBANS was 0.594 [6].…”

The Equivalence and Difference between the English and Chinese Language Versions of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status

“…An ongoing process is the development of the RBANS into different language versions, at the time of writing there were over 20 different language versions (http://www.rbans.com/translations.html) (Takaiwa et al, 2006;Yamashima, et al, 2002;Juhász et al, 2003;Holzer et al, 2007). Since the initiation of this study a team in Shanghai has also reported on the reliability and validity of a Chinese (Mandarin) translation in a community dwelling elderly sample in Shanghai, China (Cheng et al, 2011).…”

“…Several other translations have been conducted and reported in peer-review articles including a Japanese (Takaiwa et al, 2006;Yamashima et al, 2002), Hungarian (Juhász, Kemény, Linka, Sántha & Bartkó, 2003) and French (Holzer et al, 2007) translation. Since the initiation of this study a Chinese translation has also been conducted in Shanghai, China (Cheng et al, 2011).…”

Cognitive Impairment and Structural Neuroimaging Abnormalities Among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

“…In addition, subtests of RBANS were adopted to assess immediate memory (list learning and story memory); delayed memory (list recall, list recognition, story recall, and figure recall); visuospatial skill (figure copy); and language ability (picture naming and semantic fluency) [27]. The reliability and validity of RBANS in the Shanghai and Beijing population has already been established [28]. The raw scores were transformed to age-standardized T scores for all subtests of RBANS.…”