4.1 Article

The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS) The Neuropsychologic Test Battery

Journal

ALZHEIMER DISEASE & ASSOCIATED DISORDERS
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 91-101

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e318191c7dd

Keywords

aged; 80 and over; Alzheimer disease/diagnosis; data collection/method; cognition; Neuropsychologic Tests/standards; dementia

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA) [U01 AG016976]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The neuropsychologic test battery froth the Uniform Data Set (UDS) of the Alzheimer's Disease Centers (ADC) program of the National Institute on Aging consists of brief Measures of attention, processing speed, executive function, episodic memory, and language. This paper describes development of the battery and preliminary data froth the initial UDS evaluation of 3268 clinically cognitively normal then and women collected over the first 24 months of utilization. The subjects represent a sample of community-dwelling, individuals who volunteer for studies of cognitive aging. Subjects were considered clinically cognitively normal based on clinical assessment, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and the Functional Assessment Questionnaire. The results demonstrate performance on tests sensitive to cognitive aging and to the early stages of Alzheimer disease in a relatively well-educated sample. Regression models investigating the impact of age, education, and sex on test scores indicate that these variables will need to be incorporated in subsequent normative studies. Future plans include: (1) determining the psychometric properties of the battery: (2) establishing normative data, including norms for different ethnic minority groups; and (3) conducting longitudinal studies on cognitively normal subjects, individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and individuals with Alzheimer disease and other forms of dementia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available