The multimodal assessment of capacities in severe dementia (MAC-SD), a novel cognitive and functional assessment, was developed for use with patients with severe dementia. Its psychometric attributes were examined in a unicenter, open, observational study. The MAC-SD along with the Spanish language Severe Mini Mental Exam were administered to 103 patients with a diagnosis of severe dementia. Psychometric analyses were performed to determine acceptability, reliability, validity, and responsiveness. As a whole, the MAC-SD sections showed no floor effects, satisfactory internal consistency, reproducibility, construct validity, precision, and sensitivity to change. The MAC-SD performed as a useful, valid, and potentially responsive tool to measure cognition and functioning in the most advanced stages of dementia.

Background and purpose A composite instrument able to rapidly and reliably assess the most relevant motor and non‐motor afflictions suffered by Parkinson's disease (PD) patients in a real world clinic setting is an unmet need. The recently validated PD Composite Scale (PDCS) was designed to fulfil this gap as a quick, comprehensive PD assessment. The objective of this study was extensive evaluation of the PDCS's clinimetric properties using a large international sample. Methods This was a cross‐sectional study in which the PDCS, the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale and the Clinical Impression of Severity Index for PD were applied. Basic clinimetric attributes of the PDCS were analysed. Results In total, 776 PD patients were included. The PDCS total score showed negligible floor and ceiling effects. Three factors (54.5% of the variance) were identified: factor 1 included motor impairment, fluctuations and disability; factor 2, non‐motor symptoms; and factor 3, tremor and complications of therapy. Cronbach's alpha was from 0.66 to 0.79. Inter‐rater reliability showed weighted kappa values from 0.79 to 0.98 for items and intraclass correlation coefficient values from 0.95 (Disability) to 0.99 (Motor and total score). The Bland–Altmann method, however, showed irregular concordance. PDCS standard error of measurement and convergent validity with equivalent constructs of other measures were satisfactory (≥0.70). PDCS scores significantly differed by Hoehn and Yahr stage. Conclusion Overall, in line with previous findings, the PDCS is a feasible, acceptable, valid, reliable and precise instrument for quickly and comprehensively assessing PD patients.

(1) To analyse the potential association between school social support CECSCE and school social climate CASSS and experiences of dating violence among adolescents in Europe; (2) Cross-sectional design. We recruited 1,555 participants age 13-16 from secondary schools in Spain, Italy, Romania, Portugal, Poland and UK. The analysis in this text concerns student with dating experience (n=993) (57.2% of girls and 66.5% of boys). The association of the exposure to physical and/ or sexual dating violence, control dating violence and fear was measured by calculating the prevalence ratios (PR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), estimated by Poisson regression models with robust variance. All the models were adjusted by country and by sociodemografic variables; (3) The results show that the average values of all types of social support are significantly lower in young people who have suffered any type of dating violence or were scared of their partner. The likelihood of suffering physical and/or sexual dating violence decreased when CECSCE increased [PR (CI95%): 0.96 (0.92; 0.99)]. In the same way, the likelihood of fear decreased when CASSS classmates increased [PR (CI95%): 0.98 (0.96; 0.99)]; (4) There is an association between school social support and school social climate and experiences of dating violence among adolescents in Europe. Our results suggest that in the prevention of dating violence, building a supportive climate at schools and building / using the support of peers and teachers should be important.

No abstract