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.
To characterize qualitative Clock Drawing Test (CDT) error profiles across dementia etiologies and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and to propose a clinically interpretable six-class framework.
Methods
In a hospital-based study in Kolkata, India, consecutive adults with cognitive impairment completed a free-drawn “ten past ten” CDT. Errors were coded using classical qualitative categories and clock components (face, numbers, hands), then collapsed into six classes: conceptual, stimulus-bound/perseveration, spatial, planning, number-related, and graphic-conceptual. For nonexclusive domains, omnibus Pearson χ² tests summarized error distributions across diagnoses; Cramér’s V quantified effect size.
Results
Participants included Alzheimer’s disease (AD; n = 36), vascular dementia (VaD; n = 16), behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD; n = 9), MCI (n = 19), and other conditions (n = 22). Although 50.0% drew a normal clock face, only 11.8% achieved perfect numbering and 12.7% set the hands correctly. Conceptual errors were most frequent (70.6%), followed by spatial errors (47.1%); neglect and counterclockwise numbering were rare (3.9% each). Error distributions differed by diagnosis for face, numbers, and hands (all p < 0.001; V = 0.4–0.5). The six-class scheme retained a significant distributional association with diagnosis (χ² = 43.365, p = 0.002; V = 0.3): bvFTD showed prominent conceptual and graphic-conceptual failures, AD combined conceptual and spatial errors, MCI emphasized spatial and number-related errors, and VaD was heterogeneous.
Conclusions
Qualitative CDT profiles vary meaningfully across cognitive disorders. This concise six-class framework captures clinically salient patterns, especially in severely degraded drawings, and may complement brief memory screening and digital CDT metrics.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.