The German version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (D-OCS): Normative data and validation in acute stroke and a mixed neurological sample

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-01-18 DOI:10.1111/jnp.12359
Tobias Bormann, Christoph P. Kaller, Caterina Kulyk, Nele Demeyere, Cornelius Weiller
{"title":"The German version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (D-OCS): Normative data and validation in acute stroke and a mixed neurological sample","authors":"Tobias Bormann,&nbsp;Christoph P. Kaller,&nbsp;Caterina Kulyk,&nbsp;Nele Demeyere,&nbsp;Cornelius Weiller","doi":"10.1111/jnp.12359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the frequency of stroke worldwide, tools for neuropsychological assessment of patients with acute stroke are needed to identify cognitive impairments, guide rehabilitation efforts and allow for a prognosis of outcome. However, requirements for assessment tools for acute cognitive deficits differ substantially from tests for chronic neuropsychological impairments and screening tools for suspected dementia. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) has been developed as a quick to administer neurocognitive screening for acute neurological patients providing information on various cognitive domains. It is available in different languages. The present study reports cut-off scores, parallel-test reliability and concurrent validity of the German version (D-OCS). Following standardized language adaptation and translation, the D-OCS was administered to 100 healthy individuals to generate cut-off scores (5th percentile). Subsequently, 88 neurological patients were assessed with both versions of the D-OCS as well as other tests to evaluate reliability and validity of the D-OCS subscales. In a further study, the D-OCS was compared to the MoCA test in 65 acute stroke patients revealing comparable sensitivity but also differences between both tools. The cut-off scores were comparable to other international versions of the OCS. Intraclass correlations were highly significant and document reliability of the D-OCS subtests. Scores on subtests correlated significantly with independent tests securing validity. Comparison with the MoCA revealed comparable sensitivity and specificity. The D-OCS is a reliable and valid assessment tool well suited for patients with acute stroke. Differences to the MoCA test are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuropsychology","volume":"18 3","pages":"377-390"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12359","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12359","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the frequency of stroke worldwide, tools for neuropsychological assessment of patients with acute stroke are needed to identify cognitive impairments, guide rehabilitation efforts and allow for a prognosis of outcome. However, requirements for assessment tools for acute cognitive deficits differ substantially from tests for chronic neuropsychological impairments and screening tools for suspected dementia. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) has been developed as a quick to administer neurocognitive screening for acute neurological patients providing information on various cognitive domains. It is available in different languages. The present study reports cut-off scores, parallel-test reliability and concurrent validity of the German version (D-OCS). Following standardized language adaptation and translation, the D-OCS was administered to 100 healthy individuals to generate cut-off scores (5th percentile). Subsequently, 88 neurological patients were assessed with both versions of the D-OCS as well as other tests to evaluate reliability and validity of the D-OCS subscales. In a further study, the D-OCS was compared to the MoCA test in 65 acute stroke patients revealing comparable sensitivity but also differences between both tools. The cut-off scores were comparable to other international versions of the OCS. Intraclass correlations were highly significant and document reliability of the D-OCS subtests. Scores on subtests correlated significantly with independent tests securing validity. Comparison with the MoCA revealed comparable sensitivity and specificity. The D-OCS is a reliable and valid assessment tool well suited for patients with acute stroke. Differences to the MoCA test are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
德国版牛津认知筛查(D-OCS):急性中风和混合神经系统样本的标准数据和验证。
鉴于脑卒中在世界范围内的频发性,需要对急性脑卒中患者进行神经心理评估,以确定认知障碍、指导康复工作并预测预后。然而,对急性认知障碍评估工具的要求与慢性神经心理障碍测试和疑似痴呆筛查工具有很大不同。牛津认知筛查(OCS)是一种针对急性神经系统患者的快速神经认知筛查工具,可提供各种认知领域的信息。它有多种语言版本。本研究报告了德文版(D-OCS)的临界分数、平行测试可靠性和并发有效性。经过标准化的语言改编和翻译后,对 100 名健康人进行了 D-OCS 测试,以得出临界分数(第 5 百分位数)。随后,使用两种版本的 D-OCS 和其他测试对 88 名神经系统患者进行了评估,以评价 D-OCS 分量表的可靠性和有效性。在另一项研究中,将 65 名急性中风患者的 D-OCS 与 MoCA 测试进行了比较,结果显示两种工具的敏感性相当,但也存在差异。截断分数与其他国际版本的 OCS 具有可比性。类内相关性非常显著,证明了 D-OCS 各分测验的可靠性。子测试的得分与确保有效性的独立测试有显著相关性。与 MoCA 的比较显示,两者的灵敏度和特异性相当。D-OCS 是一种可靠有效的评估工具,非常适合急性卒中患者。讨论了与 MoCA 测试的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neuropsychology
Journal of Neuropsychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neuropsychology publishes original contributions to scientific knowledge in neuropsychology including: • clinical and research studies with neurological, psychiatric and psychological patient populations in all age groups • behavioural or pharmacological treatment regimes • cognitive experimentation and neuroimaging • multidisciplinary approach embracing areas such as developmental psychology, neurology, psychiatry, physiology, endocrinology, pharmacology and imaging science The following types of paper are invited: • papers reporting original empirical investigations • theoretical papers; provided that these are sufficiently related to empirical data • review articles, which need not be exhaustive, but which should give an interpretation of the state of research in a given field and, where appropriate, identify its clinical implications • brief reports and comments • case reports • fast-track papers (included in the issue following acceptation) reaction and rebuttals (short reactions to publications in JNP followed by an invited rebuttal of the original authors) • special issues.
期刊最新文献
Digit span and Bisyllabic non-word span: Italian norms. New onset abnormal eating behaviour following amygdalohippocampal laser ablation for mesial temporal epilepsy. Facial emotion recognition, affective empathy and psychosocial functioning in euthymic BD-I. Validation of the computerised battery for neuropsychological evaluation of children (BENCI) in a Cuban sample. Among common neuropsychological tests, the Paced auditory serial addition test is the strongest predictor of trait fatigue in patients with traumatic brain injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1