4.3 Article

Repeated assessment of neuropsychological deficits in multiple sclerosis using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test and the MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire

Journal

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS JOURNAL
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages 940-946

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1352458508090923

Keywords

cognition; depression; multiple sclerosis; screening

Funding

  1. Biogen Idec
  2. STRATA Steering Committee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Brief cognitive performance tests and selfreport measures of neuropsychological symptoms have been proposed for screening purposes in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinics. To better understand the reliability of screening methods, two tests, the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) and the MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire (MSNQ), were administered to 76 patients with MS and 25 healthy controls, matched on demographic characteristics. Methods Tests were administered at monthly intervals, over 6 months. In addition, the Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen for medical patients (BDIFS) was administered to monitor for changes in depression. Our objectives were to determine the reliability of these measures and the relative contribution of cognitive impairment and depression in predicting selfreport MSNQ scores. Results Results showed that both the SDMT and MSNQ have good to excellent reproducibility over repeated testing. In MS, there are minimal practice effects over successive tests, in the order of 0.2 SD for SDMT and minimal change in the MSNQ. Regression analyses modeled to predict MSNQ based on SDMT and BDIFS showed significant contribution for both, but with the majority of variance being accounted for depression. Conclusions We conclude that these brief screening tests provide some independent information about the mental status of patients with MS and are reliable, even when used in monthly, successive examinations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available