2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-021-05683-4
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Psychometrics and diagnostics of Italian cognitive screening tests: a systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

5
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 73 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such an issue has to be particularly underlined as to those ROC analyses performed on clinical subsamples (Table 6), which should be treated as purely descriptive and preliminary. Second, further in-depth investigations are needed to assess the diagnostic properties, sensitivity to disease severity, responsiveness and reliable change of the t-FAB in neurological and geriatric cohorts [13]. Finally, with respect to the present stroke cohort, the discrepancies found in diagnostic accuracy between the t-FAB-M and t-FAB-V based on lesion side cannot be properly explored due to the small sample size of individuals presenting with either right-or left-lateralized damaged (N = 5 each).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Such an issue has to be particularly underlined as to those ROC analyses performed on clinical subsamples (Table 6), which should be treated as purely descriptive and preliminary. Second, further in-depth investigations are needed to assess the diagnostic properties, sensitivity to disease severity, responsiveness and reliable change of the t-FAB in neurological and geriatric cohorts [13]. Finally, with respect to the present stroke cohort, the discrepancies found in diagnostic accuracy between the t-FAB-M and t-FAB-V based on lesion side cannot be properly explored due to the small sample size of individuals presenting with either right-or left-lateralized damaged (N = 5 each).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although several TBCS tools for the assessment of global cognitive status have been developed in recent years [6], no standardized test selectively screening executive functions is available, especially in Italy [13,14]. Indeed, fully standardized Italian TBCS tests are currently limited to multi-domain screening tests for global cognition [2,15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Further investigations on the Itel-MMSE are thereupon needed to determine whether such inferences actually apply to target clinical populations [ 22 ]. In this last respect, it might be of interest for future studies to explore the potential of the Itel-MMSE in detecting cognitive complaints in healthy adults and in elderly related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its social restrictions [ 23 , 24 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, it remains to be derived norms specific to the remote modality of delivery [ 27 ], to assess its construct and criterion validity, also exploring the association with other telephone-based measures of cognitive status, as well as with in-person cognitive screening tests [ 29 , 30 ], including the assessment of the equivalence between the Itel-MMSE and its in-person version by adopting ad-hoc statistical methods [ 31 ]. Such a standardization study should also include the following aspects: the exploration of both the inter-rater and the test–retest reliability of the Itel-MMSE, considering the potential subjectivity in scoring approaches with remote assessments [ 30 ]; the assessment of the diagnostic properties of the Itel-MMSE mostly relevant for screening tests (i.e., sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios) [ 22 , 32 ], as well as of its ability to discriminate cases from controls and its sensitivity to detect changes over time [ 22 , 32 ]. With respect to psyhometrics, diagnostics and norms for telephone-based cognitive screening tests, two recent works by Aiello et al [ 33 , 34 ] can be taken as righteous approaches of standardization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%