4.1 Article

The Cognitive Change in Women Study (CCW) Informant Ratings of Cognitive Change but Not Self-ratings are Associated With Neuropsychological Performance Over 3 Years

Journal

ALZHEIMER DISEASE & ASSOCIATED DISORDERS
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 305-311

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31820d8652

Keywords

normal aging; IQCODE; informant rating; self rating; cognitive impairment; screening

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging [AG18695, P30AG-13854]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The value of self-reported memory complaints for identifying or predicting future cognitive decline or dementia is controversial, but observations from a third party, or informant, may prove more useful. The relationship between Informant and Self-ratings of cognitive status and neuropsychological test scores was examined in a cohort of 384 nondemented, community-dwelling women, aged 60 years and older, participating in a single-site Women's Health Initiative ancillary study. Each participant and her respective informant separately completed the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Participants also underwent neuropsychological testing and responded to questionnaires on depression and functioning in complex activities of daily living. All neuropsychological test scores were significantly correlated (P values <0.05 to <0.01) with IQCODE ratings whereas Self-ratings overestimated cognitive functioning in some domains. Furthermore, the Self and Informant ratings were both positively correlated with depression and negatively correlated with participants' activity level. Therefore, informant judgments of functional abilities are robust predictors of cognitive status in high functioning nondemented women. These results suggest that informants may be sensitive to changes that are not clinically significant but that may represent an incipient trend for decline.

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