4.1 Article

Validity of a Brief Computerized Cognitive Screening Test in Dementia

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0891988712447894

关键词

neuropsychological testing; cognitive decline; dementia

资金

  1. MADRC
  2. National Institutes of Health and National Institutes of Aging [NIH-NIA] [P50 AG08671]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: While preliminary evidence supports the criterion validity of the CogState computerized brief battery in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD), definitive validation studies examining a wider range of dementia-related disorders relative to conventional neuropsychological techniques are necessary. Methods: Participants satisfying clinical consensus criteria for dementia (AD, n = 37; frontotemporal dementia, n = 7; and dementia with Lewy bodies, n = 5), MCI (n = 16), and the healthy controls (n = 22) were administered a battery of brief neuropsychological and select computerized (CogState) cognitive tests. The battery, administered through the University of Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, included measures of processing speed, attention, working memory, and learning. Results: CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. Correlations were modest between conventional and computerized test scores, covering matching domains and mostly reflecting the multidimensional nature of cognitive paradigms. Conclusions: Results support the clinical validity of this brief computerized screening battery when used in established dementias, but not to differentiate between various dementias, and suggest that the select CogState battery's effectiveness in identifying MCI from controls was not as strong as identifying specific dementias.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据