Towards reporting standards for neuropsychological study results: A proposal to minimize communication errors with standardized qualitative descriptors for normalized test scores

Schoenberg, Mike R.; Rum, Ruba

doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.07.010

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As can be seen in Figure 2b, demographic correction had little effect on the interpretation of the indices, consistent with regression results. In other words, the patient's scores fell within the same qualitative descriptor range (Schoenberg & Rum, 2017), regardless of demographic correction. Additionally, one can readily develop new research questions based on the clinical data.…”

Section: Application To An Individual Casementioning

confidence: 87%

“…Testing via the standard UDS 3.0 battery revealed evidence of impaired immediate recall, delayed recall, and semantic fluency, borderline confrontation naming, and otherwise intact performances (see Fig. 2a; performance descriptors taken from Schoenberg & Rum, 2017). The insidious onset and course, as well as the amnestic profile with milder language deficits, are common in AD (Weintraub et al, 2012).…”

Section: Application To An Individual Casementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Normative Data for Derived Measures and Discrepancy Scores for the Uniform Data Set 3.0 Neuropsychological Battery

Devora

Beevers

Kiselica

et al. 2019

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The Uniform Data Set 3.0 (UDS 3.0) neuropsychological battery is a recently published battery intended for clinical research with older adult populations. While normative data for the core measures has been published, several additional discrepancy and derived scores can also be calculated. We present normative data for Trail Making Test (TMT) A & B discrepancy and ratio scores, semantic and phonemic fluency discrepancy scores, Craft Story percent retention score, Benson Figure percent retention score, difference between verbal and visual percent retention, and an error index. Method Cross-Sectional data from 1803 English speaking, cognitively normal control participants were obtained from the NACC central data repository. Results Descriptive information for derived indices is presented. Demographic variables, most commonly age, demonstrated small but significant associations with the measures. Regression values were used to create a normative calculator, made available in a downloadable supplement. Statistically abnormal values (i.e., raw scores corresponding to the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) were calculated to assist in practical application of normative findings to individual cases. Preliminary validity of the indices are demonstrated by a case study and group comparisons between a sample of individuals with Alzheimer's (N = 81) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB; N = 100). Conclusions Clinically useful normative data of such derived indices from the UDS 3.0 neuropsychological battery are presented to help researchers and clinicians interpret these scores, accounting for demographic factors. Preliminary validity data is presented as well along with limitations and future directions.

show abstract

Section: Application To An Individual Casementioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Application To An Individual Casementioning

confidence: 99%

Normative Data for Derived Measures and Discrepancy Scores for the Uniform Data Set 3.0 Neuropsychological Battery

Devora

Beevers

Kiselica

et al. 2019

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies required impairment on a certain number of tasks, by domain, or an average overall score. What constitutes psychometric impairment is a source of debate in the neuropsychological community (Schoenberg & Rum, 2017), and this inconsistency is reflected in the studies included. Interestingly, Godefroy et al (2014) analysed various methods of classifying impairment and suggested that a cut-off of the 5th percentile is most appropriate.…”

Section: Aim 4: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening Tools for Cognitive Impairment in Adults with Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

Ridley

Bryce

et al. 2021

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Cognitive impairment is common in individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs), yet no evidence-based guidelines exist regarding the most appropriate screening measure for use in this population. This systematic review aimed to (1) describe different cognitive screening measures used in adults with SUDs, (2) identify substance use populations and contexts these tools are utilised in, (3) review diagnostic accuracy of these screening measures versus an accepted objective reference standard, and (4) evaluate methodology of included studies for risk of bias. Methods: Online databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for relevant studies according to pre-determined criteria, and risk of bias and applicability was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 (QUADAS–2). At each review phase, dual screening, extraction, and quality ratings were performed. Results: Fourteen studies met inclusion, identifying 10 unique cognitive screening tools. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common, and two novel screening tools (Brief Evaluation of Alcohol-Related Neuropsychological Impairments [BEARNI] and Brief Executive Function Assessment Tool [BEAT]) were specifically developed for use within SUD populations. Twelve studies reported on classification accuracy and relevant psychometric parameters (e.g., sensitivity and specificity). While several tools yielded acceptable to outstanding classification accuracy, there was poor adherence to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) across all studies, with high or unclear risk of methodological bias. Conclusions: While some screening tools exhibit promise for use within SUD populations, further evaluation with stronger methodological design and reporting is required. Clinical recommendations and future directions for research are discussed.

show abstract

“…the discrepancy in diagnosis criteria impedes the possibility to compare different study result. [ 37 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The sensitivity and specificity of statistical rules for diagnosing delayed neurocognitive recovery with Montreal cognitive assessment in elderly surgical patients

Wang

et al. 2020

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delayed neurocognitive recovery (DNR) is common in elderly patients after major noncardiac surgery. This study was designed to investigate the best statistical rule in diagnosing DNR with the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) in elderly surgical patients. This was a cohort study. One hundred seventy-five elderly (60 years or over) patients who were scheduled to undergo major noncardiac surgery were enrolled. A battery of neuropsychological tests and the MoCA were employed to test cognitive function at the day before and on fifth day after surgery. Fifty-three age- and education-matched nonsurgical control subjects completed cognitive assessment with the same instruments at the same time interval. The definition of the international study of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (ISPOCD 1) was adopted as the standard reference for diagnosing DNR. With the MoCA, the following rules were used to diagnose DNR: the cut-off point of ≤26; the 1 standard deviation decline from baseline; the 2 scores decline from baseline; and the Z score of ≥1.96. The sensitivity and specificity as well as the area under receiver operating characteristic curve for the above rules in diagnosis of DNR were calculated. The incidence of DNR was 13.1% (23/175) according to the ISPOCD1 definition. When compared with the standard reference, the 2 scores rule showed the best combination of sensitivity (82.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 67.1%–98.1%) and specificity (82.2%, 95% CI 76.2%–88.3%); it also had the largest area under receiver operating characteristic curve (0.824, 95% CI 0.728–0.921, P < .001). The cut-off point rule showed high sensitivity (95.7%) and low specificity (37.5%), whereas the 1 standard deviation and the Z score rules showed low sensitivity (47.8% and 21.7%, respectively) and high specificity (93.4% and 97.3%, respectively). Compared with the ISPOCD1 definition, the 2 scores rule with MoCA had the best combination of sensitivity and specificity to diagnose DNR.

show abstract

Towards reporting standards for neuropsychological study results: A proposal to minimize communication errors with standardized qualitative descriptors for normalized test scores

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Normative Data for Derived Measures and Discrepancy Scores for the Uniform Data Set 3.0 Neuropsychological Battery

Normative Data for Derived Measures and Discrepancy Scores for the Uniform Data Set 3.0 Neuropsychological Battery

Screening Tools for Cognitive Impairment in Adults with Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review

The sensitivity and specificity of statistical rules for diagnosing delayed neurocognitive recovery with Montreal cognitive assessment in elderly surgical patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About