2 results
51 Feasibility of Remote Administration of a Modified UDSv3 Cognitive Battery
- Bonnie C Sachs, Stephen R Rapp, Sarah A Gaussoin, Iris Leng, Heather A. Shappell, Mark A Espeland, Eric Fischer, Lauren A. Latham, Benjamin J Williams, James Bateman, Maryjo Cleveland, Mia Yang, Samantha Rogers, Suzanne Craft
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 563-564
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Face-to-face administration is the “gold standard” for both research and clinical cognitive assessments. However, many factors may impede or prevent face-to-face assessments, including distance to clinic, limited mobility, eyesight, or transportation. The COVID19 pandemic further widened gaps in access to care and clinical research participation. Alternatives to face-to-face assessments may provide an opportunity to alleviate the burden caused by both the COVID-19 pandemic and longer standing social inequities. The objectives of this study were to develop and assess the feasibility of a telephone- and video-administered version of the Uniform Data Set (UDS) v3 cognitive batteries for use by NIH-funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) and other research programs.
Participants and Methods:Ninety-three individuals (M age: 72.8 years; education: 15.6 years; 72% female; 84% White) enrolled in our ADRC were included. Their most recent adjudicated cognitive status was normal cognition (N=44), MCI (N=35), mild dementia (N=11) or other (N=3). They completed portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the RAVLT, either by telephone or video-format within approximately 6 months (M:151 days) of their annual in-person visit, where they completed the same in-person cognitive assessments. Some measures were substituted (Oral Trails for TMT; Blind MoCA for MoCA) to allow for phone administration. Participants also answered questions about the pleasantness, difficulty level, and preference for administration mode. Cognitive testers provided ratings of perceived validity of the assessment. Participants’ cognitive status was adjudicated by a group of cognitive experts blinded to most recent inperson cognitive status.
Results:When results from video and phone modalities were combined, the remote assessments were rated as pleasant as the inperson assessment by 74% of participants. 75% rated the level of difficulty completing the remote cognitive assessment the same as the in-person testing. Overall perceived validity of the testing session, determined by cognitive assessors (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%), was good. There was generally good concordance between test scores obtained remotely and in-person (r = .3 -.8; p < .05), regardless of whether they were administered by phone or video, though individual test correlations differed slightly by mode. Substituted measures also generally correlated well, with the exception of TMT-A and OTMT-A (p > .05). Agreement between adjudicated cognitive status obtained remotely and cognitive status based on in-person data was generally high (78%), with slightly better concordance between video/in-person (82%) vs phone/in-person (76%).
Conclusions:This pilot study provided support for the use of telephone- and video-administered cognitive assessments using the UDSv3 among individuals with normal cognitive function and some degree of cognitive impairment. Participants found the experience similarly pleasant and no more difficult than inperson assessment. Test scores obtained remotely correlated well with those obtained in person, with some variability across individual tests. Adjudication of cognitive status did not differ significantly whether it was based on data obtained remotely or in-person. The study was limited by its’ small sample size, large test-retest window, and lack of randomization to test-modality order. Current efforts are underway to more fully validate this battery of tests for remote assessment. Funded by: P30 AG072947 & P30 AG049638-05S1
36 Lexical Frequency and Semantic Fluency Performances in Cognitively Normal APOEε4 Carriers
- Lauren Latham, Bonnie Sachs, James R Bateman, Mary Jo Cleveland, Samantha Rogers, Benjamin Williams, Mia Yang, Suzanne Craft
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 244-245
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
There is a pressing need for sensitive, non-invasive indicators of cognitive impairment in those at risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). One group at an increased risk for AD is APOEε4 carriers. One study found that cognitively normal APOEε4 carriers are less likely to produce low frequency (i.e., less common) words on semantic fluency tasks relative to non-carriers, but this finding has not yet been replicated. This study aims to replicate these findings within the Wake Forest ADRC clinical core population, and examine whether these findings extend to additional semantic fluency tasks.
Participants and Methods:This sample includes 221 APOEε4 non-carriers (165 females, 56 males; 190 White, 28 Black/African American, 3 Asian; Mage = 69.55) and 79 APOEε4 carriers (59 females, 20 males; 58 White, 20 Black/African American, 1 Asian; Mage = 65.52) who had been adjudicated as cognitively normal at baseline. Semantic fluency data for both the animal task and vegetable task was scored for total number of items as well as mean lexical frequency (attained via the SUBTLEXus database). Demographic variables and additional cognitive variables (MMSE, MoCA, AMNART scores) were also included from the participants’ baseline visit.
Results:APOEε4 carriers and non-carriers did not differ on years of education, AMNART scores, or gender (ps > 0.05). APOEε4 carriers were slightly younger and included more Black/African American participants (ps < 0.05). Stepwise linear regression was used to determine the variance in total fluency score and mean lexical frequency accounted for by APOEε4 status after including relevant demographic variables (age, sex, race, years of education, and AMNART score). As expected, demographic variables accounted for significant variance in total fluency score (p < 0.0001). Age accounted for significant variance in total fluency score for both the animal task (ß = -0.32, p <0.0001) and the vegetable task (ß = -0.29, p < 0.0001), but interestingly, not the lexical frequency of words produced. After accounting for demographic variables, APOEε4 status did not account for additional variance in lexical frequency for either fluency task (ps > 0.05). Interestingly, APOEε4 status was a significant predictor of total words for the vegetable semantic fluency task only (ß = 0.13, p = 0.01), resulting in a model that accounted for more variance (R2 = 0.25, F(6, 292) = 16.11, p < 0.0001) in total words than demographic variables alone (R2 = 0.23, F(5, 293) = 17.75, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions:Unsurprisingly, we found that age, AMNART, and education were significant predictors of total word fluency. One unexpected finding was that age did not predict the lexical frequency - that is - regardless of age, participants tended to retrieve words of the same lexical frequency, which stands in contrast to the notion that retrieval efficiency of infrequent words declines with age. With regard to APOEε4, we did not replicate existing work demonstrating differences in lexical frequency and semantic fluency tasks for ε4 carriers and non-carriers; possibly due to differences in the demographic characteristics of the sample.