Reliability and Validity of the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale

Abstract

The scarcity of empirically validated assessment instruments continues to impede the work of professionals in a number of fields, including medicine, finance, and estate planning; adult protective services; and criminal justice—and, more importantly, it impedes their ability to effectively assist and, in some case, protect their clients. Other professionals (e.g., legal, financial, medical, mental health services) are in a position to prevent financial exploitation and would benefit from access to new instruments. The Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale (LFDSS) was introduced in 2016, along with evidence for its convergent validity (Lichtenberg, P. A., Fickern, L., Rahman-Filipiak, A., Tatro, R., Farrell, C., Speir, J. J., … Jackman, J. D. (2016b). The Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale: A new tool for assessing financial decision making and preventing financial exploitation (2016). Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 28, 134–151. doi:10.1080/08946566.2016.1168333). Using a sample of 213 participants, this study investigated the internal consistency of the LFDSS and its criterion validity based on ratings by professionals using the scale. Results demonstrate that the LFDSS has excellent internal consistency and clinical utility properties. This paper provides support for use of the LFDSS as a reliable and valid instrument. The LFDSS and instructions for its use are included in the article, along with information about online tools and support.

Conceptual and Empirical Approaches to Financial Decision-making by Older Adults: Results from a Financial Decision-making Rating Scale

“…As a result of the small percentage, Intellectual Factor subscale items were only used in convergent validity analyses, since the lack of variance precluded use in CFA. In our previous work, however (Lichtenberg et al, in press) the Intellectual Factor subscale was found to be reliable and valid.…”

“…Risk scores for the contextual variables and each subscale are then added. The risk score for the intellectual factors subscale follows a validated seven-item algorithm—or alternatively, a simple count of discrepancies between items is used (see Lichtenberg et al, in press). Each participant will have six scores: the five subscale risk scores and a total risk score.…”

<p>Elder Abuse Assessment Tools and Interventions for use in the Home Environment: a Scoping Review</p>

“…The E-IOA, EAI and the EPAS were validated in patients admitted to a hospital, an emergency department and in long-term care (nursing home), respectively. Seven new instruments have been published since June 2015: Risk on Elder Abuse and Mistreatment Instrument (REAMI), 33 Assessment Tool for Domestic Elder Abuse (ATDEA), 34 QualCare Scale, 35 Elder Abuse Risk Assessment and Evaluation (EARAE) tool, 36 short-form measures of four types of elder abuse (financial, emotional/ psychological, physical, neglect), 37 the Lichtenberg Financial Decision Screening Scale (LFDSS), 38 and the Family Members Mistreatment of Older Adults Screening Questionnaire (FAMOASQ). 39 The REAMI, a questionnaire that contains 22 items, was developed and tested using a mixed method design.…”

“…37 The LFDSS was introduced in 2016 aiming to prevent financial exploitation. 38 This scale is taken orally; because it is a rating scale the interviewer's judgment is critical. 38 However, the LFDSS can be easily taught to professionals of the Adult protection services (APS).…”

“…38 This scale is taken orally; because it is a rating scale the interviewer's judgment is critical. 38 However, the LFDSS can be easily taught to professionals of the Adult protection services (APS). 38 Finally, the FAMOASQ is also a questionnaire that is answered orally.…”