↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Validation therapy for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

2 blogs
2 X users
20 Wikipedia pages


33 Dimensions

Readers on

398 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
Validation therapy for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001394
Pubmed ID

Martin Neal, Philip Barton Wright


Validation therapy was developed by Naomi Feil between 1963 and 1980 for older people with cognitive impairments. Initially, this did not include those with organically-based dementia, but the approach has subsequently been applied in work with people who have a dementia diagnosis. Feil's own approach classifies individuals with cognitive impairment as having one of four stages in a continuum of dementia: these stages are Mal orientation, Time Confusion, Repetitive Motion and Vegetation. The therapy is based on the general principle of validation, the acceptance of the reality and personal truth of another's experience, and incorporates a range of specific techniques. Validation therapy has attracted a good deal of criticism from researchers who dispute the evidence for some of the beliefs and values of validation therapy, and the appropriateness of the techniques. Feil, however, argues strongly for the effectiveness of validation therapy. To evaluate the effectiveness of validation therapy for people diagnosed as having dementia of any type, or cognitive impairment The trials were identified from the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) on 8 January 2003 using the terms validation therapy, VTD and emotion-oriented care. The Specialized Register at that time contained records from the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PSYCLIT, and SIGLE and many trials databases. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining validation therapy as an intervention for dementia were considered for inclusion in the review. The criteria for inclusion comprised systematic assessment of the quality of study design and the risk of bias. Data were extracted independently by both reviewers. Authors were contacted for data not provided in the papers. Psychological scales measuring cognition, behaviour, emotional state and activities of daily living were examined. Three studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria (Peoples 1982; Robb 1986; Toseland 1997) incorporating data on a total of 116 patients (42 in experimental groups, and 74 in the control groups (usual care 43 and social contact 21, 10 in reality orientation). It was not possible to pool the data from the 3 included studies, either because of the different lengths of treatment or choice of different control treatments, or because the outcome measures were not comparable. Two significant results were found:Peoples 1982 - Validation versus usual care. Behaviour at 6 weeks [MD --5.97, 95% CI (-9.43 to -2.51) P=0.0007, completers analysis] favours validation therapy. Toseland 1997 - Validation versus social contact. Depression at 12 months (MOSES) [MD -4.01, 95% CI (-7.74 to - 0.28) P=0.04, completers analysis], favours validation. There were no statistically significant differences between validation and social contact or between validation and usual therapy. There were no assessments of carers. There is insufficient evidence from randomized trials to allow any conclusion about the efficacy of validation therapy for people with dementia or cognitive impairment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 398 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 392 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 70 18%
Student > Master 64 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 13%
Researcher 35 9%
Other 16 4%
Other 55 14%
Unknown 106 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 19%
Psychology 70 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 12%
Social Sciences 25 6%
Neuroscience 9 2%
Other 57 14%
Unknown 113 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2023.
All research outputs
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 49,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 49,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.