Donna L. Algase

The disruptive behavior of persons with dementia is a problem of considerable clinical interest and growing scientific concern. This paper offers a view of these behaviors as expressions of unmet needs or goals and provides a comprehensive conceptual framework to guide further research and clinical practice. Empiricalfindings and clinical impressions related to wandering, vocalizations and aggression to support and illustrate the framework are presented

PURPOSE: An operational definition of dementia-related wandering is proposed to aid in clinical recognition, to promote research precision and validity, and to provide a pathway toward standardization of language in wandering science. DESIGN AND METHODS: (1) One-hundred-and-eighty-three journal articles from multiple databases (Medline, OVID, CSA Journals, OCLC First Search, Google Scholar, PubMed, EBSCO) were reviewed to extract alternative terms and definitions for wandering or wandering-related behaviours; (2) terms and definitions were ordered alphabetically into a glossary; (3) a consensus approach was used to group glossary terms with related meanings into possible domains of wandering; (4) four domains (locomotion, drive, space and time) were found sufficient to encompass all wandering definitions; (5) wandering terms were placed into a conceptual map bounded by the four domain concepts and (6) a new provisional definition of wandering was formulated. RESULTS: An empirically-based, operational definition improves clinical and research approaches to wandering and explicates historical inattention to certain beneficial aspects of the behaviour. IMPLICATIONS: Adoption of the proposed operational definition of wandering behaviour provides a platform upon which dementia care may be improved and standardized language may evolve in wandering science.

This study explores the link between directed attention (DA) and getting lost behavior (GLB) in early Alzheimer's disease (AD) using a cross-sectional design with 3 groups. Based on their dementia levels, 116 community-dwelling participants were recruited from a teaching hospital in Taiwan and classified as the non-demented control, questionably demented, and mild AD groups. Statistical analyses include Pearson correlations, one-way ANOVA, and multiple regressions. Attentional impairments, consisting of distractibility, impulsivity, and executive function problems, significantly predict GLB in familiar and unfamiliar environments. Irritability and executive function problems are associated with mental difficulties in choosing a turn, whereas the use of way-finding strategies reduces GLB. Future interventions may include: (a) mental hygiene of aging; (b) programs targeted at improving attentional function and effective way-finding, and (c) inclusion of DA tests in a routine clinical neuropsychological examination for early detection and accurate diagnosis of dementia.

This paper reports on the Algase wandering scale (AWS), a 28-item questionnaire, based on five dimensions of wandering. With factor analysis, an eight-factor solution explained nearly 70 percent of the variance in ratings for 151 long-term care subjects and confirmed three of the structuring dimensions. Reliability of the AWS was examined for internal consistency and for inter-rater reliability. The AWS had an alpha of .86; subscale alphas ranged between .88 (persistent walking) and .57 (routinized walking). Inter-rater reliabilities, estimated through cross-rater comparisons of the AWS and subscales with a four-point judgement of wandering status, were moderately strong and no significant differences existed between two sets of raters. Validity of the AWS and its subscales was supported by examining their ability to differentiate wanderers and nonwanderers, by positive correlation with measures of cognitive impairment and with multiple parameters of observed wandering, and by negative or no correlations with nonwandering locomotion. Although the AWS may be a useful measure of wandering in long-term care settings, validation of its factor structure and evaluation in cross-cultural samples is needed.

Pilot intervention studies can be viewed as rehearsals for subsequent full-scale trials. They can help investigators fine-tune later larger studies as well as explore issues related to project management and budget. Pilot studies permit testing of sampling strategies, participant recruitment, intervention content, delivery methods, data collection, and analysis. They also allow researchers to experience the more practical aspects of implementing a study, such as determining the number of study staff members needed to handle recruitment and data collection or identifying special equipment needs. Because pilot study findings may be generalizable, publication is encouraged as long as the preliminary nature of the work is clearly indicated in both the abstract and the article. The present article provides an overview of the types of information that can be gleaned from pilot intervention studies that are suitable for publication.