Cognitive Screening Instruments

The Reliability of Clock Drawing Test Scoring Systems Modeled on the Normative Data in Healthy Aging and Nonamnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

“…A strong feature of the latter two scoring systems is a more detailed evaluation of the clock drawing with possibly better predictive properties for MCI (Babins et al, 2008); on the other hand, those evaluations are more time-consuming and laborious. According to Mainland and Shulman (2013), expanding evaluations does not improve the effectiveness of the CDT; they opine that easier scoring systems are better. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no normative data studies available using the scoring systems described above, with the exception of the Babins CDT (Santana et al, 2013), which is only for the variant without the predrawn clock face.…”

“…The Clock Drawing Test (CDT) is one of the screens for cognitive decline that has found its way into clinical research (Freedman et al, 1994; Mainland & Shulman, 2013; Nyborn et al, 2013). Moreover, the CDT has gained in popularity among practicing clinicians such as neuropsychologists, neurologists, geriatricians, and so on due to its valuable characteristics as a standard screening instrument (Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005).…”

“…According to the American Neuropsychiatric Association (Malloy et al, 1997), optimal screening instruments have to fulfill the following criteria: require 5 to 15 minutes to administer, sample from all major cognitive domains, and demonstrate adequate test–retest and interrater reliability and acceptable sensitivity in common neuropsychiatric disorders. Mainland and Shulman (2013) also added requirements for simple paper-and-pencil administration and clear interpretation of the results in connection with subsequent medical care for the patient. The CDT sufficiently satisfies the majority of those requirements.…”

“…The CDT was originally developed as an instrument for attentional and visual disorders, notably hemineglect syndrome (Battersby, Bender, Pollack, & Kahn, 1956; Benton & Tranel, 1996; Critchley, 1953). Its practical usage has since expanded into many branches of clinical neurology and neuropsychiatry, particularly as a brief cognitive screening test for the evaluation of cognitive impairment, especially due to pathological aging (Mainland & Shulman, 2013). Because of its simplicity and brevity of administration, it is well accepted by older and very old adults (Munang, Chan, & Lim, 2010).…”

“…Studies analyzing the psychometric properties of the CDT are numerous, and a comparison between the studies may be difficult, although it is feasible regarding interrater reliability (Lezak et al, 2012); for a more detailed review, see Mainland and Shulman (2013). Reported values are in most cases consistent and high, r > .75, with the exception of Shulman’s et al (1993, 1986) scoring system, in which the interrater reliability oscillates from r = .35 to r = .77 (Ehreke et al, 2011; Rubinova et al, 2014; Shulman et al, 1993; van der Burg et al, 2004).…”