4.5 Article

Discriminant Validity of the WAIS-R Digit Symbol Substitution Test in Subjective Cognitive Decline, Mild Cognitive Impairment (Amnestic Subtype) and Alzheimer's Disease Dementia (ADD) in Greece

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11070881

关键词

digit symbol substitution test (DSST); WAIS-R; validation study; cut-off scores; psychometric tools; neuropsychology; aMCI; Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that DSST had excellent discriminant potential in distinguishing SCD and ADD patients, but lacked the ability to differentiate between SCD and aMCI groups.
Objective: The aim of the current study was to estimate the discriminant potential and validity of the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) of the WAIS-R in the Greek elderly population meeting criteria for subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (aMCI; amnestic subtype), or Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD). Method: Four hundred eighty-eight community-dwelling older adults, visitors of the Day Center of Alzheimer Hellas, participated in the study. Two hundred forty-three of them met the criteria for ADD, one hundred eighty-two for aMCI and sixty-three for SCD. Results: Path analysis indicated that the DSST score is affected by age group, educational level, and diagnostic category, but is not affected by gender. The ROC curve analysis showed that the DSST sum score could perfectly differentiate SCD from ADD patients, whereas test's discriminant potential between aMCI and dementia ADD's subtype was satisfactory. However, DSST was unable to separate the SCD from the aMCI group. Conclusion: It appears that the DSST is unable to separate the SCD from aMCI population. Therefore, the test in question may be insensitive to incipient cognitive decline. On the contrary, the discriminant potential of the DSST as regards SCD and ADD is excellent, while discrimination between aMCI and ADD is good.

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

4.5
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