The Clinical Utility and Ecological Validity of the Medication Management Ability Assessment in Older Adults with and without Dementia.

OBJECTIVE: Older adults are susceptible to medication nonadherence, which may signify functional decline. Thus, performance-based proxies of medication-taking behavior may help diagnose dementia. We assessed the Medication Management Ability Assessment's (MMAA) clinical utility and ecological validity. METHOD: This was a retrospective chart review of 180 outpatients (age = 72 ± 8 years) who completed the MMAA during clinical evaluations. Forty-seven were cognitively normal (CN), 103 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 30 had dementia. Most (136) were independent in medication management, whereas 28 were assisted and 16 were dependent. Kruskal-Wallis tests assessed whether MMAA scores differed by diagnosis and independence. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses identified diagnostic cut-offs. Classification accuracy estimates were derived. RESULTS: MMAA performance differed across diagnosis as expected (p's < .001). Those who were independent in medication management outperformed assisted and dependent counterparts (p's < .001). Assisted and dependent cases were no different. At a cut-off = 23, the MMAA was good-to-strong in distinguishing dementia from CN cases (Sn = 0.96, Sp = 0.83), dementia from MCI (Sn = 0.70, Sp = 0.83), and dementia from functionally unimpaired cases (Sn = 0.78, Sp = 0.83). At a cut-off = 27, it had good sensitivity but weaker specificity when distinguishing both MCI and all cognitively impaired patients (MCI and dementia) from CN cases (Sn = 0.81, Sp = 0.66 and Sn = 0.81, Sp = 0.72, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The MMAA has ecological validity and clinical utility in identifying dementia. Its inclusion in neuropsychological practice may be especially useful when medication mismanagement is suspected.

The Screening Utility and Ecological Validity of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment Subtest in Older Adults with and without Dementia.

OBJECTIVE: The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment subtest has shown strong diagnostic accuracy in dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD. Its relationship to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or all-cause dementia has not been fully examined nor has its ecological validity as a proxy of financial independence. METHOD: We describe 270 women (63%) and men (age = 72 ± 8.39) who completed Bill Payment during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Seventy-one were cognitively normal (CN), 160 had MCI, and 39 had Dementia. Two hundred fourteen were independent in money management, 31 were assisted (had oversight/some help), and 25 were dependent (relied on others). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested Bill Payment's utility as a dementia screen. Kruskal-Wallis tests examined whether Bill Payment differed by levels of financial independence. RESULTS: At a cutoff of 17, Bill Payment had strong sensitivity (0.87) and specificity (0.80) for dementia versus CN cases. A cutoff of 15 distinguished dementia from MCI (Sn = 0.64, Sp = 0.85), whereas a cutoff of 16 distinguished dementia from functionally unimpaired cases (MCI + CN) with greater sensitivity and similar specificity (Sn = 0.74, Sp = 0.81). Sensitivity attenuated in MCI versus CN cases (Sn = 0.46, Sp = 0.83). Those who were independent in money management had higher scores than assisted and dependent cases (p ≤ 0.046). Assisted and dependent cases were no different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bill Payment is a valid screen of all-cause dementia. Lower Bill Payment scores may mark subtle functional decline beyond cognitive impairment alone. Specifically, results provide preliminary evidence of Bill Payment's ecological validity as a measure related to financial independence. It may prove useful when impaired financial abilities are suspected but unreported.