2016
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acw079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

To Change is Human: “Abnormal” Reliable Change Memory Scores are Common in Healthy Adults and Older Adults

Abstract: Having a single reliably changed score on retest is common when interpreting a battery of memory measures. This has implications for determining cognitive decline and cognitive recovery, suggesting that multivariate interpretation is necessary.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, the same cognitive assessments were applied at both baseline and the 2-year follow-up. Thus, improvements observed at the follow-up assessment could, in part, be attributed to practice effects (25). Since CHARLS did not record whether participants recalled specific questions from their baseline assessment, we were unable to control for these effects; future research should examine the relative impact of practice effects compared to benefits of behavioral interventions such as napping.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also, the same cognitive assessments were applied at both baseline and the 2-year follow-up. Thus, improvements observed at the follow-up assessment could, in part, be attributed to practice effects (25). Since CHARLS did not record whether participants recalled specific questions from their baseline assessment, we were unable to control for these effects; future research should examine the relative impact of practice effects compared to benefits of behavioral interventions such as napping.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the scoring method is similar to that used in the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (28) and the Mini-Mental Status Exam (29). In addition, although measurements were taken 2 years apart, the use of the same cognitive assessments at both the baseline and follow-up could have resulted in small increases in cognitive score due to practice effects (25). We could not examine the possible impact of remembering specific questions with the available data in CHARLS.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Performing multiple tests amplifies false-positive rates-a phenomenon well established in the analogous practice of administering a battery of cognitive test measures. 29,30 This has important research and clinical implications when interpreting change from a previous time point. However, individuals exhibiting reliable change in 2 or more serum biomarkers (of the 4 analyzed) occurred relatively infrequently, suggesting that utilizing a biomarker panel may improve clinical applicability in cases in which reliable change is noted in multiple biomarkers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is important as the use of multiple tests increases the likelihood of finding reliable changes due to chance (Iverson et al, 2003). For this study, we considered a critical value of ±1.64 (90%CI) as a reliable change, as used by Brooks, Holdnack, & Iverson (2016). Based on this critical value~5% of reliably improved and~5% of reliably declined scores is expected in a nonclinical population.…”
Section: Neurocognitive Development Per Individualmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The interval between measurements in this study of at least 1 year or more reduces the magnitude of practice effects, although a residual practice effect cannot be entirely discarded. Therefore, the RCI calculations were corrected for the average change in test scores between the first and second measurements as has been used by others (Brooks et al, 2016;Chelune, Naugle, Lüders, Sedlak, & Awad, 1993;Iverson, 2012). However, this method does not account for the range of practice effects, as some may improve and others may worsen (Iverson et al, 2003).…”
Section: Neurocognitive Development Per Individualmentioning
confidence: 99%