Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T06:50:40.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity of a short computerized assessment battery for moderate cognitive impairment and dementia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2010

Tzvi Dwolatzky ,
Luba Dimant ,
Ely S. Simon  and
Glen M. Doniger
Tzvi Dwolatzky*
Affiliation:
Department of Geriatrics and Memory Clinic, Mental Health Center, Beersheva, Israel Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel
Luba Dimant
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beersheva, Israel
Ely S. Simon
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Science, NeuroTrax Corporation, Fresh Meadows, NY, U.S.A. Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, U.S.A.
Glen M. Doniger
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Science, NeuroTrax Corporation, Fresh Meadows, NY, U.S.A.
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Tzvi Dwolatzky, Department of Geriatrics and Memory Clinic, Mental Health Center, P.O. Box 4600, Beersheva 84170Israel. Phone: +972 8 640 1520; Fax: +972 8 640 1462. Email: tzvidov@bgu.ac.il.
Get access

Abstract

Background: Computerized cognitive assessment tools have been developed to make precise neuropsychological assessment readily available to clinicians. Mindstreams batteries for mild impairment have been validated previously. We examined the validity of a Mindstreams battery designed specifically for evaluating those with moderate cognitive impairment.

Methods: 170 participants over the age of 60 years performed the computerized battery in addition to standard clinical evaluation. The battery consists of six technician-administered tests and one patient-administered interactive test sampling the cognitive domains of orientation (to time and place), memory, executive function, visual spatial processing, and verbal function. Staging was according to the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) on the basis of clinical data but independent of computerized cognitive testing results, thus serving as the gold standard for evaluating the discriminant validity of the computerized measures.

Results: Seven participants received a global CDR score of 0 (not impaired), 76 were staged as CDR 0.5 (very mildly impaired), 58 as CDR 1 (mildly impaired), 26 as CDR 2 (moderately impaired), and 3 as CDR 3 (severely impaired). Mindstreams Global Score performance was significantly different across CDR groups (p < 0.001), reflecting poorer overall battery performance for those with greater impairment. This was also true for the domain summary scores, with Executive Function (d = 0.67) and Memory (d = 0.65) distinguishing best between CDR 0.5 and 1, and Orientation best differentiating among CDR 1 and 2 (d = 1.20).

Conclusions: The Mindstreams battery for moderate impairment differentiates among varying degrees of cognitive impairment in older adults, providing detailed and distinct cognitive profiles.

Keywords

computerized cognitive assessmentdementiaelderly

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , August 2010 , pp. 795 - 803
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bamford, C., Lamont, S., Eccles, M., Robinson, L., May, C. and Bond, J. (2004). Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19, 151–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Corrada, M. M., Brookmeyer, R., Berlau, D., Paganini-Hill, A. and Kawas, C. H. (2008). Prevalence of dementia after age 90: results from the 90+ study. Neurology, 71, 337–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crooks, V. C., Parsons, T. D. and Buckwalter, J. G. (2007). Validation of the Cognitive Assessment of Later Life Status (CALLS) instrument: a computerized telephonic measure. BMC Neurology, 7, 10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doniger, G. M. et al. (2005). Towards practical cognitive assessment for detection of early dementia: a 30-minute computerized battery discriminates as well as longer testing. Current Alzheimer Research, 2, 117–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doniger, G. M. et al. (2006a). Computerized cognitive testing battery identifies mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia even in the presence of depressive symptoms. American Journal of Alzheimers Disease and Other Dementias, 21, 28–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doniger, G. M., Simon, E. S. and Zivotofsky, A. Z. (2006b). Comprehensive computerized assessment of cognitive sequelae of a complete 12–16 hour fast. Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 804–816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwolatzky, T. and Clarfield, A. M. (2004). Assessment of dementia in the primary care setting. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 4, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwolatzky, T. et al. (2003). Validity of a novel computerized cognitive battery for mild cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatrics, 3, 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferri, C. P. et al. (2005). Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet, 366, 2112–2117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillit, H. M., Simon, E. S., Doniger, G. M. and Cummings, J. L. (2008). Practicality of a computerized system for cognitive assessment in the elderly. Alzheimers and Dementia, 4, 14–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E. and McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freedman, M., Leach, L., Kaplan, E., Delis, D., Shulman, K. and Winocur, G. (1994). Clock drawing: A neuropsychological analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gualtieri, C. T. and Johnson, L. G. (2008). A computerized test battery sensitive to mild and severe brain injury. Medscape Journal of Medicine, 10, 90.Google ScholarPubMed
Hausdorff, J. M., Doniger, G. M., Springer, S., Yogev, G., Simon, E. S. and Giladi, N. (2006). A common cognitive profile in elderly fallers and in patients with Parkinson's disease: the prominence of impaired executive function and attention. Experimental Aging Research, 32, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, C. P., Berg, L., Danziger, W. L., Coben, L. A. and Martin, R. L. (1982). A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 566–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iliffe, S. et al. (2009). Primary care and dementia: 1. Diagnosis, screening and disclosure. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 895–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jha, A., Tabet, N. and Orrell, M. (2001). To tell or not to tell-comparison of older patients’ reaction to their diagnosis of dementia and depression. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 16, 879–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalaria, R. N. et al. (2008). Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia in developing countries: prevalence, management, and risk factors. Lancet Neurology, 7, 812–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knopman, D. S. et al. (2001). Practice parameter: diagnosis of dementia (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology, 56, 1143–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawton, M. P. and Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist, 9, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leitner, Y., Doniger, G. M., Barak, R., Simon, E. S. and Hausdorff, J. M. (2007). A novel multidomain computerized cognitive assessment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: evidence for widespread and circumscribed cognitive deficits. Journal of Child Neurology, 22, 264–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milne, A., Culverwell, A., Guss, R., Tuppen, J. and Whelton, R. (2008). Screening for dementia in primary care: a review of the use, efficacy and quality of measures. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 911–926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. C. (1993). The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology, 43, 2412–2414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Partridge, R. A., Shapiro, M. J., Micalone, M., Jenouri, I., Woolard, R. H. and Gifford, D. R. (1999). Rapid computerized cognitive assessment: performance of highly functional elder patients with minor traumatic injury in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 758–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plassman, B. L. et al. (2007). Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study. Neuroepidemiology, 29, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritsner, M. S., Blumenkrantz, H., Dubinsky, T. and Dwolatzky, T. (2006). The detection of neurocognitive decline in schizophrenia using the Mindstreams Computerized Cognitive Test Battery. Schizophrenia Research, 82, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweiger, A., Abramovitch, A., Doniger, G. M. and Simon, E. S. (2007). A clinical construct validity study of a novel computerized battery for the diagnosis of ADHD in young adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 100–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheikh, J. L. and Yesavage, J. A. (1986). Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent Evidence and Development of a Shorter Version. New York: The Hawthorth Press.Google Scholar
Tabert, M. H. et al. (2002). Functional deficits in patients with mild cognitive impairment: prediction of AD. Neurology, 58, 758–764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, C. and Spilsbury, K. (2000). Support for carers of people with Alzheimer's type dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CD000454.Google Scholar
Wilken, J. A. et al. (2003). The utility of computerized neuropsychological assessment of cognitive dysfunction in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis, 9, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed