Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Apathy and anhedonia rating scales in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations

Leentjens, Albert F.G., Dujardin, Kathy, Marsh, Laura, Martinez‐Martin, Pablo, Richard, Irene H., Starkstein, Sergio E., Weintraub, Daniel, Sampaio, Cristina, Poewe, Werner, Rascol, Oliver, Stebbins, Glenn T., Goetz, Christopher G.·2008·Movement Disorders

Abstract

Apathy is a common condition in Parkinson's disease (PD) and is generally defined as a lack of motivation. It is associated with more severe cognitive dysfunction and a decrease in activities of daily living (ADL) performance. Anhedonia, the inability to experience pleasure, can be a symptom of both depressive and apathetic syndromes. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to assess the clinimetric properties of apathy and anhedonia scales in PD patients. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify scales that have either been validated or used in PD patients. Apathy scales identified for review include the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES), the Apathy Scale (AS), the Apathy Inventory (AI), and the Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS). In addition, item 4 (motivation/initiative) of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and item 7 (apathy) of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were included. Anhedonia scales identified for review were the Snaith‐Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) and the Chapman scales for physical and social anhedonia. Only the AS is classified as “recommended” to assess apathy in PD. Although item 4 of the UPDRS also meets the criteria to be classified as recommended, it should be considered for screening only because of the obvious limitations of a single item construct. For the assessment of anhedonia, only the SHAPS meets the criteria of “Suggested.” Information on the validity of apathy and anhedonia scales is limited because of the lack of consensus on diagnostic criteria for these conditions. © 2008 Movement Disorder Society

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mds.22229

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Leentjens, A. F. G., Dujardin, K., Marsh, L., Martinez‐Martin, P., Richard, I. H., Starkstein, S. E., Weintraub, D., Sampaio, C., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Stebbins, G. T., & Goetz, C. G.
Venue
Movement Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-08-16
Volume
23
Issue
14
Pages
2004-2014
ISSN
  • 0885-3185 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8257
OpenAlex
W2147385857
Cited by
346
References
36
FWCI
12.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Apathy and anhedonia rating scales in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mds.22229
The paper
Leentjens, A. F. G., Dujardin, K., Marsh, L., Martinez‐Martin, P., Richard, I. H., Starkstein, S. E., Weintraub, D., Sampaio, C., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Stebbins, G. T., & Goetz, C. G. (2008). Apathy and anhedonia rating scales in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations. Movement Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.22229

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.