Abstract
We developed a Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability (QuENA) to detect topographical disorientation (TD) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (PwAD). In the QuENA, 3 items were designed to assess landmark agnosia, 2 for egocentric disorientation, 3 for heading disorientation, and 2 for inattention. The PwAD and their caregivers rated QuENA according to which TD symptoms would occur. Regarding the construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis showed that the caregiver version of the QuENA fits the proposed TD model well but the patient version does not. Regarding the internal consistency, the Cronbach’s α for the caregiver version was 0.91 and that for the patient version was 0.87. A discrepancy existed between the appraisal of navigational abilities by PwAD and by caregivers, and it was correlated with the number of getting lost (GL) events. The caregiver version of QuENA is a feasible, reliable, and valid instrument to assess TD and it also discriminates well between the PwAD with GL and those without.
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, topographical disorientation, questionnaire, reliability, validity, dementia
Introduction
Topographical disorientation (TD) refers to a syndrome in which the spatial navigational ability of an individual is selectively impaired in real-world environments, usually caused by a variety of brain disorders, such as dementia, traumatic brain injuries, stroke, epilepsy, and developmental disorders. 1,2 The manifestations of TD, however, are heterogeneous and multifaceted. Aguirre and D'Esposito 2 created a taxonomy that reflects various behavioral impairments for TD and linked each of them to neuroanatomical damage. Landmark agnosia, egocentric disorientation (ED), heading disorientation (HD), and anterograde disorientation are the 4 types and the corresponding cerebral area of damage are the lingual gyrus, posterior parietal cortex, retrosplenial cortex, and parahippocampus, respectively. People with landmark agnosia are unable to recognize familiar landscapes or buildings; patients with ED are unable to represent the environment from a first-person perspective and those with HD fail in deriving directional information from successfully recognized landmarks. Many researchers believe that TD occurs not only after an impaired spatial representation but also because of an executive dysfunction. 3 –5 Getting lost (GL), as a behavioral consequence to TD, occurs when patients with TD actually experience an inability to reach a familiar place or return home without an escort or aid from others. 6 People with a particular type of TD usually adopt compensatory skills to navigate in their familiar environments, such as landmark scanning, sequencing landmarks, or body position, 7 and tend to get lost when these compensatory cognitive resources are inadequate.
Spatial navigational ability is vulnerable in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (PwAD) and this deserves our attention. The prevalence of TD among community dwelling PwAD, for example, is 40% to 54%, 8,9 but the pathophysiology of TD remains unclear. Before a GL event, PwAD are prone to make incorrect turns while driving, failing to identify familiar landmarks or scenes, or failing to access their stored allocentric spatial memory.10–14 Repetitive occurrences of GL events in a patient will result in restraint or premature institutionalization. 8 Thus, it is important to detect and to describe the nature of TD in PwAD.
Evidence has shown that the neurodegenerative pattern of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is heterogeneous and a classification of AD to subtypes has been suggested. 15 –18 Regarding the spatial navigational ability, developing a feasible and reliable questionnaire with ecological validity is essential. 19,20 Previous questionnaires for spatial navigational ability mostly focused on strategies or habits 21 –23 and evaluated how good the ability was rather than uncover deficits. The Wayfinding Effectiveness Scale, developed by Algase and colleagues, 21 assesses way-finding efficiency across different types of goals and strategies. Another example is Lawton’s Wayfinding Strategy Scale that focuses on the strategies and the habits adopted by people performing way-finding behavior. 22,23 Strategies and habits indeed play a role in successful way-finding but cannot reflect the nature of way-finding deficits. Although Skelton et al 24 developed a scale for GL behaviors, it is used to describe the situations and the frequency of GL.
In an attempt to meet the clinical needs of assessing TD symptoms occurring in PwAD, we developed a structured interview to assess the severity of TD and to reveal the possible underlying mechanisms of GL behaviors so that health care providers may provide more comprehensive evaluation and care for these patients. Its reliability and validity were also tested. We were especially concerned with the context of their familiar environments because as their cognitive abilities deteriorate, PwAD will gradually restrict themselves to a narrower range. If PwAD cannot find their way in familiar environments, the danger is obvious. 6,9
Methods
Participants
We invited 218 community-dwelling PwAD and their caregivers to join the study. All the patients regularly visited Alzheimer Disease Center of a national university and had no ambulatory problems, aphasia, focal cerebral damage, or visual or auditory impairments. Moreover, they must have been living in their current residence before the development of AD. The caregivers had been living with their patient and had adequate observation of the patient’s daily life. The PwAD were diagnosed by a senior behavioral neurologist according to the criteria of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) 25 and of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) 26 and underwent neuropsychological assessments including the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) 27 and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). 28 The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects. Participant in the study was voluntary and an informed consent was given before the interview.
Construction of the QuENA
Because of the complexity and the heterogeneity of TD, we adopted a hybrid model to describe the manifestation of TD in the PwAD and used it as the construct of the Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability (QuENA). The hybrid model was derived from Aguirre’s taxonomy of the TD and the studies examined TD in the PwAD.2,5,9 The QuENA consists of 10 items, each of which defines a TD symptom. 1,2,5,29,30 The participants were asked to rate a 4-point scale where a specific symptom would occur (0 = never; 1 = in a less familiar place; 2 = in a moderately familiar place; 3 = in a very familiar place). The familiarity was defined according to how frequently an individual would visit a place and the geographical distance from home, as shown in the questionnaire (Appendix). A higher score indicates a severe condition. The 10 items were categorized into 4 subscales, namely landmark and scene agnosia (LSA) in 3, ED in 2, HD in 3, and inattention (INA) in 2. In addition to the TD symptoms, we also collected information about GL events of the patients from the patients as well as their caregivers. Only GL events that occurred in the familiar environments of the patients and after the onset of AD were taken into consideration.
Two versions of the QuENA were designed, that is, patient version (P-version) and caregiver version (C-version), which were identical in their construct and the description. The P-version requested PwAD to evaluate themselves on TD symptoms, while the C-version was a report from the caregivers about their patient’s TD manifestation. The P- and C-versions were administrated separately by a single interviewer.
Reliability
The reliability of the QuENA was established by internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) and test–retest reliability (Pearson’s r). Cronbach’s α was administrated in the 4 subscales and the full scale. The P- and C-versions were readministrated to 20 pairs of participants 4 weeks after the initial interview.
Validity
Based on GL being one of the most serious outcomes of TD, the validity of the QuENA was evaluated by construct validity and diagnostic accuracy for GL. The construct validity was derived from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Because χ 2 is sensitive to sample size, the overall model fitting was evaluated by the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The acceptability of the model fit was judged by the recommended standards: GFI, CFI, and TLI > 0.90, as well as RMSEA values of 0.08 or less for a close-fit. 31
As mentioned previously, the QuENA was aimed at identifying the risk of GL in PwAD, and its diagnostic accuracy was measured by the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves (area under the curve [AUC]), which tests whether the QuENA can discriminate the patients who had experienced GL from those who had not. The cutoff point was determined by the Youden index or J, which is defined as the maximum vertical distance between the ROC curve and the diagonal or chance line, hence J = maximum (sensitivity + specificity − 1). 32,33
Analysis
We used t test to compare demographic data and the factors of interest between the PwAD with GL and those without and those between different versions of the QuENA. The reliability was estimated by internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) and the test–retest reliability (Pearson’s r). The construct validity was established by CFA. The diagnostic validity of the QuENA was determined by the ROC curves. All the analyses were carried out using SPSS 15.0 and AMOS 7.0 software. 34,35
Results
The Participants
A total of 218 PwAD (144 females) and 218 caregivers completed the study. The mean age of the patients was 75.3 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.4 years), formal education was 5.6 years (SD = 4.9 years), onset age was 72.1 years (SD = 10.2 years), and the duration of dementia was 3.2 years (SD = 3.6 years). The number of years at current residence of the patients was 29.4 years (SD = 21.8 years).
The QuENA
No difference was detected in the demographic data, the related variables, or neuropychological tests between the patients with GL (GL group) and those without (non-GL group; Table 1). However, differences existed in the QuENA between the GL and non-GL groups in both P- and C-versions (Table 2). Regarding the appraisal of each symptom of the QuENA, the discrepancy between the caregivers and the patients was obvious (Table 3). Moreover, 106 (48.6%) patients had been lost before. Previous studies adopted the discrepancy between the assessment from caregiver and that from patient as the index of the patient’s self-awareness toward a specific cognitive deficit. 36 –38 We adopted the discrepancy approach to assess the awareness of TD in AD patients and compared the discrepancy score across 3 GL frequencies (never = 112 patients, single = 71 patients, and multiple = 35 patients), the results are shown below. As seen in Figure 1, a difference existed among the 3 groups (F = 23.1, degrees of freedom = 2, P < .001) and the post hoc comparison (Scheffe’s correction) showed that the discrepancy score in the multiple GL group was significantly higher than the other 2 groups. The awareness of TD in those who experienced multiple GL events was the worst.
Table 1.
Characteristics and Navigational Abilities of the Patients Based on the Incidence of GL or Not
| Group (number) | GL (106) | No GL (112) | P values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic data | |||
| Male, n (%) | 36 (34) | 38 (34) | NS |
| Age, years, mean (SD) | 74.7 (9.4) | 75.7 (9.5) | NS |
| Education, years, mean (SD) | 6.1 (4.8) | 5.2 (5.1) | NS |
| Residential, years, mean (SD) | 25.6 (21.4) | 30.1 (22.2) | NS |
| Days out per week, before AD | 5.9 (2.1) | 5.6 (2.4) | NS |
| Days out per week, after AD | 2.5 (3.0) | 4.1 (3.2) | .000 |
| Alzheimer’s disease | |||
| Onset age, years, mean (SD) | 71.8 (9.7) | 72.3 (10.6) | NS |
| Duration, years, mean (SD) | 2.9 (2.5) | 3.4 (4.4) | NS |
| MMSE, mean (SD) | 17.5 (6.2) | 17.2 (5.1) | NS |
| CASI, mean (SD) | 59.8 (19.2) | 59.7 (18.4) | NS |
| QuENA-C | |||
| LSA, mean (SD) | 3.5 (2.7) | 1.6 (1.8) | .000 |
| ED, mean (SD) | 2.7 (1.9) | 1.0 (1.3) | .000 |
| HD, mean (SD) | 3.3 (2.9) | 1.2 (1.8) | .000 |
| INA, mean (SD) | 2.4 (2.1) | 0.7 (1.1) | .000 |
| Full scale, mean (SD) | 12.0 (7.8) | 4.4 (4.9) | .000 |
| QuENA-P | |||
| LSA, mean (SD) | 2.0 (2.4) | 0.7 (1.3) | .000 |
| ED, mean (SD) | 1.3 (1.7) | 0.4 (0.9) | .000 |
| HD, mean (SD) | 1.4 (2.0) | 0.7 (1.5) | .005 |
| INA, mean (SD) | 1.3 (1.8) | 0.4 (0.8) | .000 |
| Full scale, mean (SD) | 6.0 (6.1) | 2.1 (3.5) | .000 |
Abbreviations: GL, getting lost; QuENA, Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability; P, patient; C, caregiver; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; CASI, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument; LSA, landmark and scene agnosia; ED, egocentric disorientation; HD, heading disorientation; INA, inattention; SD: standard deviation; AD: Alzheimer’s disease.
Table 2.
The Results of CASI Subitems Between GL and Non-GL Groups
| Subitems (full score) | GL, n = 106 | Non-GL, n = 112 | P values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remote memory (10) | 8.3 (2.1) | 8.3 (2.3) | .888 |
| Recent memory (12) | 4.3 (3.5) | 4.0 (3.2) | .528 |
| Attention (8) | 6.6 (1.6) | 6.7 (1.1) | .567 |
| Mental manipulation (10) | 5.5 (3.0) | 5.5 (3.3) | .915 |
| Orientation (18) | 9.7 (5.5) | 9.9 (5.3) | .764 |
| Abstract thinking (12) | 5.7 (1.9) | 5.8 (1.9) | .840 |
| Language (10) | 7.8 (1.9) | 7.9 (1.8) | .956 |
| Drawing (10) | 7.3 (3.0) | 6.8 (3.2) | .256 |
| Verbal fluency (10) | 4.7 (2.5) | 4.7 (2.3) | .835 |
Abbreviations: CASI, Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument; GL, getting lost.
Table 3.
The Discrepancy Between Patients and Caregivers
| QuENA-C | QuENA-P | P values | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full scale | 8.1 (7.5) | 4.0 (5.2) | .0000 |
| Landmark and scene agnosia | 2.6 (2.5) | 1.3 (2.0) | .0000 |
| Egocentric disorientation | 1.8 (1.8) | 0.8 (1.4) | .0000 |
| Heading disorientation | 2.3 (2.6) | 1.1 (1.8) | .0000 |
| Inattention | 1.5 (1.9) | 0.9 (1.4) | .0000 |
Abbreviation: QuENA, Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability; P, patient; C, caregiver.
Figure 1.
Discrepant scores, as patient’s total score subtracted from caregiver’s scores, across 3 groups with different experience in getting lost. *P < .001.
Reliability
Cronbach’s α coefficient for P-version full scale was 0.876, LSA-P was 0.823, ED-P was 0.777, HD-P was 0.799, and INA-P was 0.674. Similarly, the coefficient for the C-version full scale was 0.913, LSA-C was 0.836, ED-C was 0.745, HD-C was 0.843, and INA-C was 0.775. The test–retest reliability (Pearson's r) of the P-version was 0.780 (P < .001) and C-version was 0.902 (P < .001).
Validity
The GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA of QuENA C-version were 0.945, 0.979, 0.968, and 0.053, respectively, indicating a good model. The indices in the P-version were 0.911, 0.939, 0.905, and 0.108. Its RMSEA, however, was beyond the close fit criteria, 0.08. As a result, the model in the data derived from the patient’s self-evaluation did not fit perfectly. The standardized factor loadings and correlation between factors of the QuENA provided by the caregivers are shown in Figure 2. Higher factor loadings indicated that TD symptoms explained a large portion of the variance. The AUC of the C-version was 0.775 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.706-0.844) and that of the P-version was 0.705 (95% CI = 0.628-0.783). As shown in Table 4, the optimal cutoff point was 7/8 for the C-version and 1/2 for the P-version and as such the prediction of GL was 78% and 71%, respectively.
Figure 2.
Confirmatory factor analysis for the hybrid model of topographical disorientation (caregiver version of the QuENA). Factor loadings and correlations between factors were based on caregiver’s report. One-way arrows indicate factor loadings and 2-way arrows indicate correlations between factors. Standardized residual variances (e) are listed below each error box (e1 to e10). Q01 to Q10 are the items of the QuENA (Appendix).
Table 4.
Optimal Cutoff Points of the QuENA
| Cutoff | Sensitivity | Specificity | Youden index (J) a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QuENA-C | 6/7 | 0.726 | 0.714 | 0.440 |
| 7/8 | 0.717 | 0.750 | 0.467 | |
| 8/9 | 0.632 | 0.830 | 0.462 | |
| QuENA-P | 0/1 | 0.756 | 0.500 | 0.243 |
| 1/2 | 0.695 | 0.607 | 0.302 | |
| 2/3 | 0.571 | 0.696 | 0.267 |
Abbreviation: QuENA, Questionnaire on Everyday Navigational Ability; P, patient; C, caregiver.
aYouden index (J) = sensitivity + specificity − 1.
Discussion
The results of this study are important for several reasons, not least because this is the first syndrome-oriented and theory-driven questionnaire to assess TD in PwAD. Moreover, the QuENA is a reliable and valid questionnaire to evaluate the possibility of GL in PwAD. Although the hybrid model of TD was derived from case reports with focal brain damage, we demonstrated that the model is suitable for PwAD through caregivers’ observation. Most importantly, the CFA provided support for the 4 factors in the TD symptoms of PwAD. This cross-sectional study also revealed the value of the QuENA to discriminate between PwAD who have experienced GL and those who have not. Even though the cutoff of the C-version was higher than that of the P-version, the score was low considering the maximum score of 30 of the QuENA. The total score of the QuENA was the sum of the 4 types of TD. 2,5 According to previous studies, GL occurs after any type of TD, 11 and therefore the low cutoff score of the C-version is reasonable. Moreover, with better discriminating power of GL, the C-version is recommended as a primary tool to evaluate the possibility of GL and is suitable for the description of TD symptoms. Conversely, the P-version is suitable for testing the awareness of patients regarding their TD symptoms. When QuENA is used as a tool to detect TD symptoms in PwAD and showed that a patient actually underestimates their TD, caregivers should pay more attention for the risk of GL.
In addition, the finding of a discrepancy in the appraisal of spatial navigational ability between patients and their caregivers is clinically important. The discrepancy is more obvious in the multiple-GL group, which accounted for one third of all GL, indicating that poor insight may lead to repeated GL. It is also consistent with previous studies that low awareness toward cognitive impairments (anosognosia) may increase the risk of dangerous behaviors. 39 From our previous study, not every PwAD who experienced first time GL would be watched more closely by his or her caregivers. Some of the caregivers did nothing at all even after several occurrences of GL events. 40
Finally, the QuENA is recommended to assess PwAD. In fact, the TD symptoms may occur in some PwAD before other cognitive functions decline. 41 In this study, the clinical severity of the PwAD was mild to moderate and no differences were detected in any of the demographical or clinical variables between the PwAD with GL and those without. Similarly, no difference was detected in the CASI or MMSE between the GL and non-GL groups. The TD symptoms of PwAD usually manifest through landmark agnosia, impairment in route knowledge, or attention deficit 5,12,14 and may occur after damage to different cerebral areas. Based on the dissociation of TD and GL from general cognitive decline, 9 the QuENA is a good tool to fill the gap between the traditional tests and the actual spatial navigational ability in familiar environments. Furthermore, we also recommend that PwAD, in particular those pinpointed as being at risk by the QuENA, should improve their familiarity of their neighborhood through a cognitive rehabilitative program or become more aware of their TD through real-world testing. They may also learn to use compensatory or coping strategies once GL has occurred, according to the deficits (higher scores) from the QuENA.
Limitations of this study are addressed as follows. First, although in this cross-sectional study, QuENA easily differentiates PwAD with GL from those without, further longitudinal research is needed to show the progression of TD in PwAD and to find the factors that can predict GL. Second, future studies are also necessary to compare the results of QuENA with way-finding experiments to establish the external validity. Finally, the study lacked neuroanatomical correlates, such as atrophies in structural neuroimages or perfusion deficit or hypometabolism in functional neuroimages.
In conclusion, the QuENA, as a theoretical driven questionnaire, is feasible, reliable, and valid to assess TD symptoms in PwAD. It may be useful for warning caregivers of the risk of GL in such patients.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Jo Yung-Wei Wu and Colin McDonald for editing this manuscript.
Appendix A
QuENA, Caregiver Version
- Please select WHERE the symptom(s) would occur.
- 0: Never; The symptom(s) has never occurred.
- 1: Less familiar; The patient has been there but seldom visits there.
- 2: Fairly familiar; The patient goes there regularly.
- 3: Very familiar; The patient goes there almost every day.
- Has the patient ever failed to recognize a landmark?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to the patient
- Has the patient ever failed to recognize street scenes?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to the patient
- Has the patient ever lost the sense of familiarity?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to the patient
- Has the patient ever been unable to describe the route between his/her home and a destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to the patient
- Has the patient ever made a wrong turn at a crossroad?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only at less familiar crossroads
- 2: Yes, at crossroads which the patient knows fairly well
- 3: Yes, at crossroad which the patient knows very well
- Has the patient ever accidently forgotten to make a turn due to inattention?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, occurred in the place very familiar to the patient (such as passing by his/her home)
- Has the patient ever accidently ended up in an unfamiliar place due to inattention?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only at less familiar crossroads
- 2: Yes, at crossroads which the patient knows fairly well
- 3: Yes, at crossroad which the patient knows very well
- When the patient was at the start point (eg, at home), has he/she ever failed to point out the direction of a destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only less familiar destinations
- 2: Yes, for destinations which the place visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, for very familiar destinations (such as his/her own home or neighborhood)
- When the patient was on the road, has he/she ever failed to point out the direction of his/her home or destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which the patient visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to the patient
- When the patient was indoors, has he/she ever failed to point out the exit direction or where the bathroom is?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but in less familiar buildings (such as a department store)
- 2: Yes, in buildings which the patient visits fairly regularly (such as a hospital)
- 3: Yes, in buildings very familiar to the patient (such as his/her own house)
- Getting lost in a familiar place (the patient could not find the correct route without asking someone or calling a family member for help)
- 0: has never happened
- 1: has happened
Appendix B
QuENA, Patient Version
- Please select WHERE the symptom(s) would occur.
- 0: Never; Those symptom(s) has never occurred
- 1: Less familiar; I have ever been there but seldom visit there.
- 2: Fairly familiar; I go there regularly.
- 3: Very familiar; I go there almost every day.
- Have you ever failed to recognize a landmark?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to me
- Have you ever failed to recognize street scenes?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to me
- Have you ever lost the sense of familiarity?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visits fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to me
- Have you ever been unable to describe the route between your home and a destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to me
- Have you ever made a wrong turn at a crossroad?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only at less familiar crossroads
- 2: Yes, at crossroads which I know fairly well
- 3: Yes, at crossroad which I know very well
- Have you ever accidently forgotten to make a turn due to inattention?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, occurred in the place very familiar to me (such as passing by my home)
- Have you ever accidently ended up in an unfamiliar place due to inattention?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only at less familiar crossroads
- 2: Yes, at crossroads which I know fairly well
- 3: Yes, at crossroad which I know very well
- When you were at the start point (eg. at home), have you ever failed to point out the direction of a destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only less familiar destinations
- 2: Yes, for destinations which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, for very familiar destinations (such as my home or neighborhood)
- When you were on the road, have you ever failed to point out the direction of your home or destination?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but only in less familiar place
- 2: Yes, in places which I visit fairly regularly
- 3: Yes, in places very familiar to me
- When you were indoors, have you ever failed to point out the exit direction or where the bathroom is?
- 0: Never
- 1: Yes, but in less familiar buildings (such as a department store)
- 2: Yes, in buildings which I visited fairly regularly (such as a hospital)
- 3: Yes, in buildings very familiar to me (such as my house)
- Getting lost in a familiar place (you could not find the correct route without asking someone or calling a your family member for help)
- 0: has never happened
- 1: has happened
Footnotes
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
- 1. Barrash J. A historical review of topographical disorientation and its neuroanatomical correlates. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20(6):807–827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Aguirre GK, D'Esposito M. Topographical disorientation: a synthesis and taxonomy. Brain. 1999;122(9):1613–1628. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Passini R, Rainville C, Marchand N, Joanette Y. Wayfinding in dementia of the Alzheimer's type: planning abilities. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1995;17(6):820–832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Rainville C, Passini R, Marchand N. A multiple case study of wayfinding in dementia of the Alzheimer type: decision making. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2001;8(1):54–71. [Google Scholar]
- 5. Chiu YC, Algase D, Whall A, et al. Getting lost: directed attention and executive functions in early Alzheimer's disease patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(3):174–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Pai MC, Jacobs WJ. Navigational disorders patients with Alzheimer's disease. In: Chan AP, ed. Alzheimer's Disease Research Trends. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Biomedical Books; 2008:275–288. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Antonakos CL. Compensatory wayfinding behavior in topographic disorientation from brain injury. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(4):495–502. [Google Scholar]
- 8. McShane R, Gedling K, Keene J, Fairburn C, Jacoby R, Hope T. Getting lost in dementia: a longitudinal study of a behavioral symptom. Int Psychogeriatr. 1998;10(3):253–260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Pai MC, Jacobs WJ. Topographical disorientation in community-residing patients with Alzheimer's disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2004;19(3):250–255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Uc EY, Rizzo M, Anderson SW, Shi Q, Dawson JD. Driver route-following and safety errors in early Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2004;63(5):832–837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Rosenbaum RS, Gao F, Richards B, Black SE, Moscovitch M. “Where to?” Remote memory for spatial relations and landmark identity in former taxi drivers with alzheimer's disease and encephalitis. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005;17(3):446–462. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Burgess N, Trinkler I, King J, Kennedy A, Cipolotti L. Impaired allocentric spatial memory underlying topographical disorientation. Rev Neurosci. 2006;17(1-2):239–251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Grossi D, Fasanaro AM, Cecere R, Salzano S, Trojano L. Progressive topographical disorientation: a case of focal Alzheimer's disease. Neurol Sci. 2007;28(2):107–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Cheng PJ, Pai MC. Dissociation between recognition of familiar scenes and of faces in patients with very mild Alzheimer disease: an event-related potential study. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010;121(9):1519–1525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Nyth AL, Gottfries C, Blennow K, Brane G, Wallin A. Heterogeneity of the course of Alzheimer's disease: a differentiation of subgroups. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1991;2(1):18–24. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Petersen RC. Clinical subtypes of Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2000;9(3):16–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Cummings JL. Cognitive and behavioral heterogeneity in Alzheimer's disease: seeking the neurobiological basis. Neurobiol Aging. 2000;21(6):845–861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Warkentin S, Ohlsson M, Wollmer P, Edenbrandt L, Minthon L. Regional cerebral blood flow in Alzheimer's disease: classification and analysis of heterogeneity. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(3):207–214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Chaytor N, Schmitter-Edgecombe M. The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: a review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychol Rev. 2003;13(4):181–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Spooner DM, Pachana NA. Ecological validity in neuropsychological assessment: a case for greater consideration in research with neurologically intact populations. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21(4):327–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Algase D, Son GR, Beel-Bates C, Song J. Initial psychometric evaluation of the Wayfinding Effectiveness Scale. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29(8):1015–1032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Lawton CA. Gender differences in way-finding strategies: relationship to spatial ability and spatial anxiety. Sex Roles. 1994;30(11):765–779. [Google Scholar]
- 23. Lawton CA. Strategies for indoor wayfinding: the role of orientation. J Environ Psychol. 1996;16(2):137–145. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Skelton RW, Bukach CM, Laurance HE, Thomas KGF, Jacobs JW. Humans with traumatic brain injuries show place-learning deficits in computer-generated virtual space. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000;22(2):157–175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al. Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(8):734–746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. American Psychiatric Association (APA). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 27. Teng EL, Lin KN, Chou P, Fuh JL, Wang SJ, Liu HC. The cognitive abilities screening instrument and preliminary findings of its Chinese version, CASI-2.0. Chin J Clin Psychol. 1994;2(2):69–73. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Mendez MF, Cherrier MM. Agnosia for scenes in topographagnosia. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41(10):1387–1395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Wilson BA, Berry E, Gracey F, et al. Egocentric disorientation following bilateral parietal lobe damage. Cortex. 2005;41(4):547–554. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]
- 32. Fluss R, Faraggi D, Reiser B. Estimation of the Youden index and it's associated cut-off point. Biom J. 2005;47(4):458–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Akobeng AK. Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(5):644–647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Base SS. 15.0 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Arbuckle JL. Amos 7.0 User's Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 36. Leicht H., Berwig M., Gertz HJ. Anosognosia in Alzheimer's disease: the role of impairment levels in assessment of insight across domains. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2010;16(3):463–473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Migliorelli R, Teson A, Sabe L, et al. Anosognosia in Alzheimer's disease: a study of associated factors. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1995;7(3):338–344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Kalbe E, Salmon E, Perani D, et al. Anosognosia in very mild Alzheimer's disease but not in mild cognitive impairment. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2005;19(5-6):349–356. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Starkstein SE, Jorge R, Mizrahi R, Adrian J, Robinson RG. Insight and danger in Alzheimer's disease. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14(4):455–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Tu MC, Pai MC. Getting lost for the first time in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr 2006;18(3):67–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Pai MC, Hsiao S. Incipient symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and effect of education on the onset age: a study of 155 Taiwanese patients. Acta Neurol Taiwan. 2002;11(2):66–69. [Google Scholar]