Objective: The clock drawing test (CDT) has become one of the most widely used cognitive screening instruments in clinical and research settings. Its effectiveness, acceptability, and quick and easy administration have made it a staple for cognitive screening in dementia and a wide range of brain disorders. Despite a spike in popularity since the 1990s, its origins are relatively unknown. The goal of this review is to chronicle its saga and chart its usage over time. Methods: PsycInfo, Medline, and PubMed literature searches were performed from earliest record to June 2016, in addition to manual cross-referencing of bibliographies, with a focus before 1990. Summary of relevant articles and books up until 1989 is included, as well as clinical applications and surveys that track CDT usage over time. Results: While MacDonald Critchley's well-known textbook from 1953, The Parietal Lobes, is often cited as the first mention of the CDT, its recorded use actually stretches back more than a century to 1915. A review of the literature shows that the CDT began as a test for aphasia-related disorders and constructional apraxia until its entry into contemporary cognitive screening in the 1980s when it primarily became a cognitive screen. Its usage took off in 1989 with over 2000 publications since. Conclusions: Despite a fairly obscure existence for decades, the CDT has emerged as an effective and ideal cognitive screening instrument for a wide range of conditions. Its use continues to increase, and it has been incorporated into several widely used cognitive screening batteries.
BackgroundWith an increasingly aged, frail population that holds a disproportionate amount of wealth, clinicians (especially those with expertise in older adults) may be asked with more frequency to offer a clinical opinion on testamentary capacity (TC), the mental capacity to make a will.MethodThis paper reviews the legal criteria as well as the empirical research on assessment tools for determining testamentary capacity (TC). We also review the relevance of instruments used for the assessment of other decisional capacities in order to evince the potential value of developing a standardized assessment of TC for clinician experts.ResultsThe legal criteria, often referred to as a “test”, for determining requisite TC (Banks v. Goodfellow) have remained much the same since 1870 with minimal clinical input and, as such, there has been little development in TC assessment instruments. Decisional instruments designed to assess Consent to Treatment may have relevance for TC.ConclusionWe make the case for a semi-structured interview that includes standardized criteria for the legal test for TC, supplemented by a validated brief neuropsychological assessment, which together comprise a Contemporaneous Assessment Instrument (CAI) for TC.
Background: Current surgical risk assessment tools fall short of appreciating geriatric risk factors including cognitive deficits, depressive, and frailty symptoms that may worsen outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This study hypothesized that a screening tool, SMARTIE, would improve detection of these risks pre-TAVI, and thus be predictive of postoperative delirium (POD) and 30-day mortality post-TAVI. Design: Prospective observational cohort study, using a historical cohort for comparison. Participants: A total of 234 patients (age: 82.2±6.7 years, 59.4% male) were included. Half were screened using SMARTIE. Methods: The SMARTIE cohort was assessed for cognitive deficits and depressive symptoms using the Mini-Cog test and PHQ-2, respectively. Measures of frailty included activities of daily living inventory, the Timed Up and Go test and grip strength. For the pre-SMARTIE cohort, we extracted cognitive deficits, depression and frailty symptoms from clinic charts. The incidence of POD and 30-day mortality were recorded. Bivariate chi-square analysis or t -tests were used to report associations between SMARTIE and pre-SMARTIE groups. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to identify independent predictors of POD and 30-day mortality. Results: More patients were identified with cognitive deficits (χ 2 =11.73, p =0.001), depressive symptoms (χ 2 =8.15, p =0.004), and physical frailty (χ 2 =5.73, p =0.017) using SMARTIE. Cognitive deficits were an independent predictor of POD (OR: 8.4, p <0.01) and 30-day mortality (OR: 4.04, p =0.03). Conclusion: This study emphasized the value of screening for geriatric risk factors prior to TAVI by demonstrating that screening increased identification of at-risk patients. It also confirmed findings that cognitive deficits are predictive of POD and mortality following TAVI.
Background/Aims: Clinicians are increasingly being asked to provide their opinion on the decision-making capacity of older adults, while validated and widely available tools are lacking. We sought to identify an online cognitive screening tool for assessing mental capacity through the measurement of executive function. Methods: A mixed elderly sample of 45 individuals, aged 65 years and older, were screened with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the modified Cambridge Brain Sciences Battery. Results: Two computerized tests from the Cambridge Brain Sciences Battery were shown to provide information over and above that obtained with a standard cognitive screening tool, correctly sorting the majority of individuals with borderline MoCA scores. Conclusions: The brief computerized battery should be used in conjunction with standard tests such as the MoCA in order to differentiate cognitively intact from cognitively impaired older adults.
The results of this study suggest that the CDT is effective at screening for cognitive impairment in persons with TBI. The CDT could be a valuable supplementary tool in TBI clinics as well as an effective cognitive screening instrument in busy primary care settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.