4.3 Article

Neuropsychological Test Norms for the Assessment of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Impairment Among South African Adults

期刊

AIDS AND BEHAVIOR
卷 27, 期 9, 页码 3080-3097

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10461-023-04029-9

关键词

Neurocognitive testing; Norms; South Africa; HIV; HAND

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reliable and valid neurocognitive (NC) test batteries are crucial in early detection of HIV-associated NC impairment. The HNRC Battery has shown cultural validity in international neuroHIV studies, but no norms are available for South Africa. Data from 500 HIV-uninfected participants were collected to develop demographically corrected South African norms, which resulted in a lower impairment rate compared to using US norms. These findings highlight the importance of localized norms in interpreting NC performance.
Reliable and valid neurocognitive (NC) test batteries that assess multiple domains of cognitive functioning are vital tools in the early detection of HIV-associated NC impairment. The HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center's International Neurobehavioral Battery (HNRC Battery) is one such diagnostic tool and has shown cultural validity in several international neuroHIV studies. However, no published norms are currently available for the full HNRC Battery in South Africa. To accurately interpret NC test results, appropriate reference norms are required. In light of this challenge, data were collected from 500 healthy, HIV-uninfected participants to develop demographically corrected South African norms. When demographically corrected United States of America (U.S.) norms were applied to the performance scores of our neurologically intact, HIV-negative sample, an impairment rate of 62.2% was observed compared to a 15.0% impairment rate when the newly generated South African norms were applied. These results reiterate the findings of other low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the need for localized, country-specific norms when interpreting NC performance.

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

4.3
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