Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 1;1(3):22. doi: 10.3390/geriatrics1030022

Table 2.

Summary of the psychometric aspects of validated delirium screening instruments.

Name and Author Validation Sample Country of Validation Number of Items/Criteria; Administration Time Sensitivity; Specificity Validation in Other Countries
CAM (Inouye et al. 1990) [8] 56 patients USA 9 criteria; 20 min 94% to 100%; 90% to 95% Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Thailand
mCAM-ED (Grossmann et al. 2014) [22] 207 elderly patients Switzerland 3 step assessment; 4–6 min Small sample not able to calculate with accuracy NF
CAM-ICU (Han et al. 2014) [7] 406 elderly patients USA 4 criteria; 2–5 min 68% to 72%; 98.6% NF
DTS (Han et al. 2013) [9] 406 patients USA Two-step assessment; 20 s 98%; 55% NF
bCAM (Han et al. 2013) [30] 406 patients USA 4 criteria; 2 min 78% to 84%; 96% to 97% NF
NEECHAM (Neelon, 1996) [32] 426 elderly patients USA 9 items; 10 min 95%; 78% Portugal; Sweden; Belgium
RASS (Sessler et al. 2002) [34] 293 ICU patients USA Ten-step assessment; 30–60 s 99%; 64% Brazil; Germany; Iran; Spain

CAM = Confusion Assessment Method; CAM-ICU = Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit; mCAM-ED = Modified Confusion Assessment Method for the Emergency Department; BCAM = Brief Confusion Assessment Method; RASS = Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale; DTS = Delirium Triage Scale; OBS = Organic Brain Syndrome Scale; NEECHAM = Neelon and Champagne Confusion Scale; NF = Not Found, unable to find any published peer-reviewed articles regarding instrument validations in other countries.