Free
Student Contribution  |   January 2005
Utilizing the Dementia Rating Scale-2 Alternate Form to Differentiate Independent and Assisted Living in a Continuing Care Retirement Community
Article Information
Geriatric Medicine
Student Contribution   |   January 2005
Utilizing the Dementia Rating Scale-2 Alternate Form to Differentiate Independent and Assisted Living in a Continuing Care Retirement Community
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, January 2005, Vol. 105, 23-24. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2005.105.1.23
The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, January 2005, Vol. 105, 23-24. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2005.105.1.23
Background and Hypothesis: At this time, there are no objective measures to help determine which level of care in the continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs) is most appropriate for an elderly individual. The goal of this project was to evaluate the usefulness of the Dementia Rating Scale-2: Alternate Form (DRS-2: AF)1 in differentiating appropriate placements within CCRCs. How well do DRS-2: AF scores differentiate between residents in independent living (IL) and assisted living (AS) settings? We hypothesized that individuals living independently would score significantly better than those placed in an assisted living environment. 
Materials and Methods: Participants included 64 individuals residing at the Cadbury CCRC, Cherry Hill, NJ (27 in IL and 37 in AL). We administered the DRS-2: AF to all 64 participants. All DRS-2: AF protocols were scored, and results were entered into an SPSS database. 
Living placement (IL or AL) was based on an interdisciplinary team assessment, including a geriatric physician, clinical social worker, physical therapist, and nurse. 
We ran descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviations for total score and subscales, and Student's t-tests to examine differences between means for IL and AL participants. 
Results: In terms of the descriptive statistics for each group (IL and AL) for total score and subscale scores, the IL group received higher scores on the DRS-2: AF total score (m=130.52, SD=8.10) in comparison to the AL group (m=114.14, SD=20.92). A similar pattern was seen across the subscale scores as well. 
The results of the t-tests revealed significant differences across groups for total score (P<.001), with IL participants receiving significantly higher scores. Likewise IL participants received significantly higher scores on the following subscale scores as well: Initiation and Perseveration (P<.001), Construction (P=.03), and Memory (P<.001). 
Conclusion:Our findings suggest the DRS-2: AF total score as well as the three subscales may be useful in differentiating residents residing in IL settings from residents in AL settings. Individuals with lower scores should be considered for an AL placement, as opposed to IL placement. The DRS-2: AF may be a useful tool in making placement decisions for potential residents within CCRCs. 
 Sponsors: The project was sponsored by a Pfizer grant and a Summer Research Student Fellowship program at UMDNJ-SOM.
 
Schmidt K. Dementia Rating Scale-2: Alternate Form Supplemental Manual. Lutz, Fla: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc; 2004.