4.2 Article

Clock Drawing Test in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Quantitative Analysis of Four Scoring Methods and Qualitative Analysis

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 26, Issue 6, Pages 483-489

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000167879

Keywords

Mild cognitive impairment; Alzheimer disease; Clock drawing test screening

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [A050079]
  2. Health Promotion Fund
  3. Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [06-59]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The role of the clock drawing test (CDT) as a screening tool for dementia has been evaluated. However, studies focusing on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are still lacking. The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of the CDT as a screening method for MCI. Methods: 524 subjects aged 60 years and older were recruited in the community. Of these, 241 were diagnosed as not cognitively impaired (NCI) and 224 were classified as MCI. The CDT was scored according to the Freedman, Rouleau, Todd, and CERAD CDT and an additional comprehensive scoring system incorporating elements of most CDT for qualitative analysis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the 4 CDT scoring systems for MCI ranged from 40.7 to 56.4% and from 71.8 to 85.3%, respectively. The likelihood ratio and the positive and negative predictive values of the 4 CDT ranged from 18 to 29, 18.2 to 24.5 and from 55.9 to 78.4%, respectively. In qualitative analysis, a significantly lower performance in the clock numbers category was observed in the MCI group. Conclusion: This study suggests that although some qualitative analyses could help in identifying MCI individuals, the CDT is insufficient as a screening method to distinguish MCI individuals from NCI individuals in a clinical setting. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available