Oxford Cognitive Screen – Brazilian Portuguese version (OCS-Br) A pilot study

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

et al. 2019

The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) is a screening tool specifically designed for acute stroke patients, assessing 5 domains: attention and executive functions, language, praxis, numeric cognition and memory. Here we present norms for the Dutch version of the OCS (OCS-NL). We evaluated whether age and socio-economic status were linked to OCS-NL performance, since stroke prevalence and recovery are associated to these characteristics. We acquired normative data of the OCS-NL version A in 246 neurologically healthy participants and a subset of 179 participants also completed parallel version B. Socio-economic status was measured using three indicators: education, income and occupation. Data were analyzed in a Bayesian way and we report credible intervals of effect sizes. There were no systematic differences in OCS-NL global performance between low, middle and high income groups, nor between manual and non-manual workers. There were small differences between low and middle and between low and high education groups, and the association of education and OCS-NL performance did not vary across subtests. The association of age and OCS-NL performance varied across subtests. The naming, praxis, verbal memory and executive task had the strongest association with age. These data suggest that normative data for the OCS-NL do not need to be stratified on income and occupation, that age-specific cut-off scores are especially recommended for the naming, praxis, executive function and verbal memory tasks and that education must be considered when interpreting OCS-NL test scores.

Section: Cognitive Screening After Strokementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dutch version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS-NL): normative data and their association with age and socio-economic status

Huygelier

Schraepen

Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition

et al. 2019

“…The OCS has been validated and standardized in many other languages, including Italian ( 4 ), Spanish ( 7 ), Brazilian Portuguese ( 8 ), Chinese ( 9 ), Dutch ( 10 ), Russian ( 11 ), and Danish ( 12 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principal Component Analysis of Oxford Cognitive Screen in Patients With Stroke

Iosa

Abbruzzese³

et al. 2022

Front. Neurol.

Cognitive deficits occur in most patients with stroke and are the important predictors of adverse long-term outcome. Early identification is fundamental to plan the most appropriate care, including rehabilitation and discharge decisions. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) is a simple, valid, and reliable tool for the assessment of cognitive deficits in patients with stroke. It contains 10 subtests, providing 14 scores referring to 5 theoretically derived cognitive domains: attention, language, number, praxis, and memory. However, an empirical verification of the domain composition of the OCS subtests in stroke data is still lacking in the literature. A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on 1,973 patients with stroke who were enrolled in OCS studies in the UK and in Italy. A number of six main components were identified relating to the domains of language and arithmetic, memory, visuomotor ability, orientation, spatial exploration, and executive functions. Bootstrapped split-half reliability analysis on patients and comparison between patients and 498 healthy participants, as that between patients with left and right hemisphere damage, confirmed the results obtained by the principal component analysis. A clarification about the contribution of each score to the theoretical original domains and to the components identified by the PCA is provided with the aim to foster the usability of OCS for both clinicians and researchers.

“…In Australia, 71% of people who have a stroke are aged over 65 years (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021); however, only 45% (version A) and 47% (version B) of our cohorts were aged over 65 years. Our cohorts were similar in age to those used for the OCS (Demeyere et al, 2015) and other OCS adaptations (Huygelier et al, 2019;Ramos et al, 2018;Shendyapina et al, 2019). Our version A cohort was two participants short of the recommended minimum of 60 (Clinical Outcomes-Oxford University Innovation, 2018).…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data should then be collected from a normative sample in a relevant (educational, age‐matched) cohort to ensure country‐specific cut scores for impairment are provide (Clinical Outcomes‐Oxford University Innovation, 2018 ). To date, the UK OCS team have approved eight versions of the OCS that have been adapted, and cut scores determined for languages and cultural contexts other than “British English” (Hong et al, 2018 ; Huygelier et al, 2019 ; Kong et al, 2016 ; Mancuso et al, 2016 ; Ramos et al, 2018 ; Robotham et al, 2020 ; Shendyapina et al, 2019 ; Valera‐Gran et al, 2019 ). There is currently no Australian version of the OCS, with established Australian cut scores.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Oxford Cognitive Screen for use with Australian people after stroke (OCS‐AU): The adaptation process and determining cut scores for cognitive impairment using a cross‐sectional normative study

Sanctuary

Hewitt

et al. 2022

Aus Occup Therapy J

Introduction: Two parallel versions (A and B) of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) were developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as a stroke-specific screen of five key cognitive domains commonly affected post-stroke. We aimed to develop the Australian versions A and B (OCS-AU), including Australian cutscores indicative of impairment. We hypothesised there to be no difference in performance between the UK and Australian normative data cohorts. Methods: Our multidisciplinary expert panel used the UK pre-defined process to develop the OCS-AU versions A and B. We then conducted a cross-sectional normative study. We purposively recruited community-dwelling, Australianborn, and educated adults; with no known cognitive impairment;Colette Sanctuary and Luisa Hewitt contributed equally to this paper.