Review of Cognitive Assessments for Older Adults

Douglas, Alison; Letts, Lori; Liu, Lili

doi:10.1080/02703180801963758

Cited by 17 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With top-down assessments, OTs use a broad approach and can assess clients by focusing on their roles and whether the person is able to perform occupations, through observation and informal interviews [12]. Several research studies have investigated OTs' pattern of practice in relation to the assessment of clients with cognitive impairments [7,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. The results of these studies indicate that OTs use both top-down and bottom-up assessments when assessing clients with cognitive impairments.…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of clients with cognitive impairments: A survey of Norwegian occupational therapists in municipal practice

Stigen

Björk

Lund

et al. 2017

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With the Coordination Reform Act initiated in 2012, Norwegian occupational therapists in municipal practice have been given responsibilities concerning clients with cognitive impairments. With emphasis on supporting best practice, the aim was to investigate the practice of Norwegian municipal occupational therapists (OTs) in their assessment of clients with cognitive impairments. Method: An online questionnaire was used to collect data from 497 of 1367 OTs in Norwegian municipalities (RR ¼ 36%) Results: The most frequently used methods were informal interviews (91%), observations (91%) and standardized assessments (73%). The most frequently used standardized assessments were the Clock Drawing test (60%) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE 59%). The most common reasons for using standardized assessments were to get a better foundation for initiating interventions (74%), to get more reliable results (64%) and to measure the effect of interventions (47%). The most common reasons for not using standardized assessments were that they did not have competence (49%) or that they did not have access to the materials (40%). Conclusion:The results indicate that there are challenges when it comes to the methods and standardized assessments used. These findings invite further research on enabling municipal OTs to move further towards evidence-based practice. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of clients with cognitive impairments: A survey of Norwegian occupational therapists in municipal practice

Stigen

Björk

Lund

et al. 2017

Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessment tools were classified according to two main assessment approaches used in the health profession literature on cognitive measures: the bottom-up approach and the top-down approach (Radomski & Trombly, 2008). General assessments of EF at the impairment level reflect a bottom-up approach, where the focus lies in evaluating EF capacity and inferring potential impairment of function in driving (Douglas, Letts & Liu, 2008). Pre-driving assessments that include the specific tasks known to be pre-requisites of driving demonstrate the top-down approach by evaluating performance on driving-related tasks.…”

Section: Classification Of Executive Function Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing executive function in relation to fitness to drive: A review of tools and their ability to predict safe driving

Asimakopulos

Boychuck

Sondergaard

et al. 2011

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among the 53 tools, there were 27 general assessments of cognition, 19 driving-specific and seven activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living assessments. No single tool measured all executive function components: working memory was the most common (n = 20/53). Several tools demonstrated strong predictive validity and clinical utility. For example, tools, such as the Trail Making Test and the Maze Task, have the shortest administration time (i.e. often less than 10 minutes) and the most easily accessible method of administration (i.e. pen and paper or verbal). Driving-specific tools range from short questionnaires, such as the 10-minute Manchester Driving Behaviour Questionnaire, to more complex tools requiring about 45 minutes to administer. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: The appropriateness of a tool depends on the individual being assessed and on practical constraints of the clinical context. The Driving Executive Function Tool Guide provides useful information that should facilitate decision-making and selection of appropriate executive function tools in relation to driving.

show abstract

“…The quality criteria used in this review were based on Law et al [16], and have been used in previous reviews [56,57]. Assigning value labels for ranges of the reported statistics was done in accordance with other authors [24].…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%