CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,805Psychological Testing and AssessmentDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Reliability and validity of the apathy evaluation scale

Marin, Robert S., Biedrzycki, Ruth C., Firinciogullari, Sekip·1991·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article presents evidence for the reliability and construct validity of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). Conceptually, apathy is defined as lack of motivation not attributable to diminished level of consciousness, cognitive impairment, or emotional distress. Operationally, the AES treats apathy as a psychological dimension defined by simultaneous deficits in the overt behavioral, cognitive, and emotional concomitants of goal-directed behavior. Three versions of the AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated for 123 subjects, ages 53-85, meeting research criteria for right or left hemisphere stroke, probable Alzheimer's disease, major depression, or well elderly control. Multiple forms of reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater) were satisfactory. Several types of validity evidence are presented for each version of the scale, including the following: ability of the AES to discriminate between groups according to mean levels of apathy, discriminability of apathy ratings from standard measures of depression and anxiety, convergent validity between the three versions of the scale, and predictive validity measures derived from observing subjects' play with novelty toys and videogames. Guidelines for the administration of the AES are presented, along with suggestions for potential applications of the scale to clinical and research questions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Apathy Evaluation Scale Self-report (AES-S) measures apathy including interests, productivity and initiative during the past 4 weeks.

    “The AES-S [29] measures apathy including interests, productivity and initiative during the past 4 weeks.”

    From Patient-reported outcome measures for life engagement in mental health: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

  • In a sample including healthy participants and those with MDD, the AES-S showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.86) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.76); convergent validity with clinician-rated apathy (r = 0.72) (smaller with informant-rated apathy, r = 0.43); divergent validity with patient-rated depression and anxiety (r = 0.42 for both); and discriminated between healthy,

    “In a sample that included healthy participants and those with MDD, the AES-S showed satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and test–retest reliability (Pearson’s r = 0.76); convergent validity with clinician-rated apathy (r = 0.72) (the correlation was smaller with informant-rated apathy, r = 0.43); divergent validity with patient-rated depression and anxiety (r = 0.42 for both);”

    From Patient-reported outcome measures for life engagement in mental health: a systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Marin, R. S., Biedrzycki, R. C., & Firinciogullari, S.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Marin, Robert S.
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1991-08
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
143-162
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0165-1781(91)90040-v
OpenAlex
W1982921548
Cited by
1,805
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 107 · 2024: 128 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 147 · 2020: 117 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 106 · 2017: 103 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 83 · 2014: 85 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 59
FWCI
3.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh041930-03)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG00235)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-41930)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
apathy, Apathy Evaluation Scale, scale reliability, construct validity, goal-directed behavior, motivation, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, older adults, informant ratings, convergent validity, predictive validity, video games
MeSH terms
Aged, Alzheimer Disease, Cerebrovascular Disorders, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Middle Aged, Motivation, Play and Playthings, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reproducibility of Results, Geriatric Assessment

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