4.6 Article

Can Performance on Daily Activities Discriminate Between Older Adults with Normal Cognitive Function and Those with Mild Cognitive Impairment?

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
Volume 62, Issue 7, Pages 1347-1352

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgs.12878

Keywords

cognitive function; mild cognitive impairment; mild neurocognitive disorder; activities of daily; living; instrumental activities of daily living

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P30 MH090333, R01MH043823, R01 MH072947, T32 MH019986, P50AG05133]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Institute [UL1RR024153, UL1TR000005]
  3. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Endowed Chair in Geriatric Psychiatry
  4. NIH [R01 HD074693, R03 HD073770]
  5. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
  6. SanBio
  7. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Rehabilitation Institute
  8. University of Pittsburgh Office of Research
  9. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  10. Forest
  11. Pfizer
  12. Lilly
  13. National Institute of Mental Health
  14. National Institute on Aging
  15. National Center for Minority Health Disparities
  16. National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
  17. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
  18. Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute
  19. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
  20. John A. Hartford Foundation
  21. National Palliative Care Research Center
  22. Clinical and Translational Science Institute
  23. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  24. National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH072947, MH080240]
  25. National Institute of Nursing Research [NR010904]
  26. National Center for Medical and Rehabilitation Research [HD055931]
  27. National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research [H133B090024, H133A080053]
  28. Association of Arthritis Health Professionals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether preclinical disability in performance of cognitively focused instrumental activity of daily living (C-IADL) tasks can discriminate between older adults with normal cognitive function and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and, secondarily, to determine the two tasks with the strongest psychometric properties and assess their discriminative ability so as to generate diagnosis-relevant information about cognitive changes associated with MCI and mild neurocognitive disorder according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria. DESIGN: Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from a cohort of individuals diagnosed with normal cognitive function or MCI. SETTING: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with remitted major depression (N = 157). MEASUREMENTS: Diagnosis of cognitive status was made at the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, University of Pittsburgh. Performance on eight C-IADLs was measured using the criterion-referenced, observation-based Performance Assessment of Self-Care Skills (PASS). RESULTS: Ninety-six older adults with normal cognitive function (mean age 72.5 +/- 5.9) and 61 with MCI (mean age 75.5 +/- 6.3) participated. The eight C-IADLs demonstrated 81% accuracy in discriminating cognitive status (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.81, P < .001). Two tasks (shopping and check-book balancing) were the most discriminating (AUC = 0.80, P < .001); they demonstrated similar ability as all eight C-IADLs in determining cognitive status. Assessing performance on these two C-IADLs takes 10 to 15 minutes. CONCLUSION: This is the first demonstration of the discriminative ability of preclinical disability to distinguish older adults with MCI from cognitively normal older adults. These findings highlight potential tasks that, when measured using the observation-based PASS, demonstrate greater effort for individuals with MCI. These tasks may be considered when attempting to diagnose MCI or mild neurocognitive disorder in clinical practice and research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available