We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Validated computerized assessments for cognitive functioning are crucial for older individuals and those at risk of cognitive decline. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) exhibits good construct validity but requires validation in diverse populations and for adults aged 85+. This study uses data from the Assessing Reliable Measurement in Alzheimer’s Disease and cognitive Aging study to explore differences in the factor structure of the NIHTB-CB for adults 85 and older, Black participants versus White participants, and those diagnosed as amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) vs cognitively normal (CN).
Method:
Subtests from the NACC UDS-3 and NIHTB-CB were administered to 503 community-dwelling Black and White adults ages 55–99 (367 CN; 136 aMCI). Confirmatory factor analyses were used to investigate the original factor structure of NIHTB-CB that forms the basis for NIHTB-CD Index factor scores.
Results:
Factor analyses for all participants and some participant subsets (aMCI, White, 85+) substantiated the two anticipated factors (Fluid and Crystallized). However, while Black aMCI participants had the expected two-factor structure, for Black CN participants, the List Sorting Working Memory and Picture Sequence tests loaded on the Crystallized factor.
Conclusions:
Findings provide psychometric support for the NIHTB-CB. Differences in factor structure between Black CN individuals and Black aMCI individuals suggest potential instability across levels of cognitive impairment. Future research should explore changes in NIHTB-CB across diagnoses in different populations.
Diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) include a report of cognitive decline from the patient or a close informant. It is therefore important to understand the relationship between self- and informant-rated cognition and actual patient performance. Furthermore, it is unknown whether the nature of the relationship between the patient and their informant impacts accuracy of subjective reports. This study aimed to determine the association between informant report, self-report and objective cognitive performance based on relationship factors. We predicted that informant report would be more closely associated with objective performance than self-report after controlling for demographics and mood (Geriatric Depression Scale [mean= 1.4, SD=2]), especially among those who live with the participant and those who are spouses/partners.
Participants and Methods:
Participants (n = 338; age= 73.5 ±6.7) of varying diagnoses and their respective informants were drawn from the longitudinal cohort of the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (MADRC). The majority of informants were spouses/significant others (55.6%), followed by 23.7% being other family members and 20.7% were non- family members; 58.9% of informants live with the participant. Both respondents completed the Cognitive Change Index (CCI) to rate the patient’s cognitive status (higher scores indicating worsening cognition) across three domains: memory (12 questions), language (1 question), and attention/executive functioning (7 questions). These domains were matched to objective cognitive performance measured using the MADRC neuropsychological battery. Executive functioning and attention were assessed using Number Span Test Forward and Backward (NSF, NSB) and Trail Making Test Part B and Trail- Making Test Part A and B ratio (TMTB, TMTB: A); memory was measured using Craft Story 21 (Immediate and Delayed), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) Total Recall, Delayed Recall, and Benson Complex Figure (BCF) Delayed Recall; and Language was measured by the Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) and Animal fluency.
Results:
Linear regression adjusted for sex, race, and mood indicated that both patient and informant CCI ratings were significantly (p<.05) associated with objective cognitive performance. For every one unit increase on executive CCI items, there was a significant decline in executive functioning (NSF patient and informant ß= -0.09, NSB: [ßP= -.14; ßp-0.13]) and TMTB [ßP= 3.85; ß= 3.10 [% change]). Memory performance also declined per unit increase on CCI memory items: (Craft Story 21 Immediate [ßP=-0.32; ß= -0.37] and Delayed [ßP=-.40; ßp -.47], HVLT-R Total Recall [ßP= -.31; ßI=-.37] and Delayed Recall [ßP= -.16; ß=-.20], and BCF Delayed Recall [ßP= -.18; ß= -.23]. Similarly, one unit increase on the single CCI language item was associated with a decline in COWAT (ßP= -2.27; ß= -4.61) and Animal fluency (ßP= -1.88; ß= -3.03). Effect modification by participant-informant relationship type or participant-informant cohabitation was not significant.
Conclusions:
Patient and informant ratings are associated with objective measures of cognition regardless of the relationship between informant and patient or if they live together. This study was limited by a well-educated sample (mean= 16.1 years of education, SD= 2.4 years) with relatively limited diversity among participant-informant relationships. Future studies should replicate analyses across a larger and more diverse sample.
Telecommunication-assisted neuropsychological assessment (teleNP) has become more widespread, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, comparatively few studies have evaluated in-home teleNP testing and none, to our knowledge, have evaluated the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center’s (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study compares in-home teleNP administration of the UDS v3.0, acquired while in-person activities were suspended due to COVID-19, with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.
Participants and Methods:
210 participants from the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center’s longitudinal study of memory and aging completed both an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent teleNP UDS v3.0 evaluation. The teleNP UDS v3.0 was administered either via video conference (n = 131), telephone (n = 75), or hybrid format (n = 4) with approximately 16 months between evaluations (mean = 484.7 days; SD = 122.4 days; range = 320-986 days). The following clinical phenotypes were represented at the initial assessment period (i.e., the most recent in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation prior to the teleNP UDS v3.0): cognitively healthy (n = 138), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 60), dementia (n = 11), and impaired not MCI (n = 1). Tests included both the in-person and teleNP UDS v3.0 measures, as well as the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) and Letter “C” Fluency.
Results:
We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with raw scores from each time point for the entire sample. Sub-analyses were conducted for each phenotype among participants with an unchanged consensus research diagnosis: cognitively healthy (n = 122), MCI (n = 47), or cognitively impaired (i.e., MCI, dementia, and impaired not MCI) (n = 66). Test-retest reliability across modalities and clinical phenotypes was, in general, moderate. The poorest agreement was associated with the Trail Making Test (TMT) - A (ICC = 0.00; r = 0.027), TMT - B (ICC = 0.26; r = 0.44), and Number Span Backward (ICC = 0.49). The HVLT-R demonstrated moderate reliability overall (ICC = 0.51-0.68) but had notably weak reliability for cognitively healthy participants (ICC = 0.12-0.36). The most favorable reliability was observed in Craft Story 21 Recall - Delayed (ICC = 0.77), Letter Fluency (C, F, and L) (ICC = 0.74), Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) (ICC = 0.75), and Benson Complex Figure – Delayed (ICC = 0.79).
Conclusions:
Even after accounting for the inherent limitations of this study (e.g., significant lapse of time between testing intervals), our findings suggest that the UDS v3.0 teleNP battery shows only modest relationships with its in-person counterpart. Particular caution should be used when interpreting measures showing questionable reliability, though we encourage further investigation of remote vs. in-person testing under more controlled conditions.
In research, and particularly clinical trials, it is important to identify persons at high risk for developing Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), such as those with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). However, not all persons with this diagnosis have a high risk of AD as MCI can be broken down further into amnestic MCI (aMCI), who have a high risk specifically for AD, and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI), who are predominantly at risk for other dementias. People with aMCI largely differ from healthy controls and naMCI on memory tasks as it is the hallmark criteria for an amnestic diagnosis. Given the growing use of the NIH Toolbox Cognition battery in research trials, this project investigated which Toolbox Cognition measures best differentiated aMCI from naMCI and in comparison to persons with normal cognition.
Participants and Methods:
A retrospective data analysis was conducted investigating performance on NIH Toolbox Cognition tasks among 199 participants enrolled in the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. All participants were over age 50 (51-89 years, M=70.64) and had a diagnosis of aMCI (N=74), naMCI (N=24), or Normal Cognition (N=101). Potential demographic differences were investigated using chi-square and ANOVAs. Repeated measure general linear model was used to look at potential group differences in Toolbox Cognition performance, covarying for age which was statistically different in aMCI versus Normal participants. Linear regression was used to determine which cognitive abilities, as measured by the Uniform Data Set-3 (UDS3), might contribute to Toolbox differences noted in naMCI versus aMCI groups.
Results:
As expected, aMCI had lower Toolbox memory scores compared to naMCI (p=0.007) and Normals (p<0.001). Interestingly, naMCI had lower Oral Reading scores than both aMCI (p=0.008) and Normals (p<0.001). There were no other Toolbox performance differences between the MCI groups. 19.4% of the variance in Oral Reading scores was explained by performance on the following UDS3 measures: Benson delayed recall (inverse relationship) and backward digit span and phonemic fluency (positive relationship).
Conclusions:
In this study, Toolbox Picture Sequence Memory and Oral Reading scores differentiated aMCI and naMCI groups. While the difference in memory was expected, it was surprising that the naMCI group performed worse than the aMCI and normal groups on the Toolbox Oral Reading task, a task presumed to reflect Crystalized abilities resistive to cognitive decline. Results suggest that Oral Reading is primarily positively associated with working memory and executive tasks from the UDS3, but negatively associated with visual memory. It is possible that the Oral Reading subtest is sensitive to domains of deficit aside from memory that can best distinguish aMCI from naMCI. A better understanding of the underlying features in the Oral Reading task will assist in better characterizing deficit patterns seen in naMCI, making selection of aMCI participants more effective in clinical trials.
Few studies have evaluated in-home teleneuropsychological (teleNP) assessment and none, to our knowledge, has evaluated the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center’s (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study evaluates the reliability of the in-home UDS v3.0 t-cog with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.
Method:
One hundred and eighty-one cognitively unimpaired or cognitively impaired participants from a longitudinal study of memory and aging completed an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent UDS v3.0 t-cog evaluation (∼16 months apart) administered either via video conference (n = 122) or telephone (n = 59).
Results:
We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between each time point for the entire sample. ICCs ranged widely (0.01–0.79) but were generally indicative of “moderate” (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.5–0.75) to “good” (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.75–0.90) agreement. Comparable ICCs were evident when looking only at those with stable diagnoses. However, relatively stronger ICCs (Range: 0.35–0.87) were found between similarly timed in-person UDS v3.0 evaluations.
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest that most tests on the UDS v3.0 t-cog battery may serve as a viable alternative to its in-person counterpart, though reliability may be attenuated relative to the traditional in-person format. More tightly controlled studies are needed to better establish the reliability of these measures.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.