Effect of processing speed and memory performance on classification accuracy of the dot counting test in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-07 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2024.2363978
Matthew S Phillips, Amanda M Wisinger, Brian M Cerny, Humza Khan, Fini Chang, Ka Yin Phoebe Tse, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Zachary J Resch, Greg Shapiro, Jason R Soble, Kyle J Jennette
{"title":"Effect of processing speed and memory performance on classification accuracy of the dot counting test in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample.","authors":"Matthew S Phillips, Amanda M Wisinger, Brian M Cerny, Humza Khan, Fini Chang, Ka Yin Phoebe Tse, Gabriel P Ovsiew, Zachary J Resch, Greg Shapiro, Jason R Soble, Kyle J Jennette","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2363978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined the impact of impairment in two specific cognitive abilities, processing speed and memory, on Dot Counting Test (DCT) classification accuracy by evaluating performance validity classification accuracy across cognitively unimpaired, single-domain impairment, and multidomain impairment subgroups within a mixed clinical sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Cross-sectional data were analyzed from 348 adult outpatients classified as valid (<i>n</i> = 284) or invalid (<i>n</i> = 64) based on four independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Unimpaired (<i>n</i> = 164), single-domain processing speed impairment (<i>n</i> = 24), single-domain memory impairment (<i>n</i> = 53), and multidomain processing speed and memory impairment (<i>n</i> = 43) clinical subgroups were established among the valid group. Both the traditional DCT E-score and unrounded E-score were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the DCT demonstrated acceptable to excellent classification accuracy across the unimpaired (area under the curve [AUC] traditional E-score=.855; unrounded E-score=.855) and single-domain impairment groups (traditional E-score AUCs = .690-.754; unrounded E-score AUCs = .692-747). However, it did not reliably discriminate the multidomain processing speed and memory impairment group from the invalid performers (traditional and unrounded E-scores AUC = .557).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings support the DCT as a non-memory-based freestanding PVT for use with single-domain cognitive impairment, with traditional E-score ≥17 (unrounded E-score ≥16.95) recommended for those with memory impairment and traditional E-score ≥19 (unrounded ≥18.08) with processing speed impairment. Moreover, results replicated previously established optimal cutoffs for unimpaired groups using both the traditional (≥14) and unrounded (≥13.84) E-scores. However, the DCT did not reliably discriminate between invalid performance and multidomain cognitive impairment, indicating caution is warranted when using the DCT with patients suspected of greater cognitive impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2363978","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study examined the impact of impairment in two specific cognitive abilities, processing speed and memory, on Dot Counting Test (DCT) classification accuracy by evaluating performance validity classification accuracy across cognitively unimpaired, single-domain impairment, and multidomain impairment subgroups within a mixed clinical sample.

Method: Cross-sectional data were analyzed from 348 adult outpatients classified as valid (n = 284) or invalid (n = 64) based on four independent criterion performance validity tests (PVTs). Unimpaired (n = 164), single-domain processing speed impairment (n = 24), single-domain memory impairment (n = 53), and multidomain processing speed and memory impairment (n = 43) clinical subgroups were established among the valid group. Both the traditional DCT E-score and unrounded E-score were examined.

Results: Overall, the DCT demonstrated acceptable to excellent classification accuracy across the unimpaired (area under the curve [AUC] traditional E-score=.855; unrounded E-score=.855) and single-domain impairment groups (traditional E-score AUCs = .690-.754; unrounded E-score AUCs = .692-747). However, it did not reliably discriminate the multidomain processing speed and memory impairment group from the invalid performers (traditional and unrounded E-scores AUC = .557).

Conclusions: Findings support the DCT as a non-memory-based freestanding PVT for use with single-domain cognitive impairment, with traditional E-score ≥17 (unrounded E-score ≥16.95) recommended for those with memory impairment and traditional E-score ≥19 (unrounded ≥18.08) with processing speed impairment. Moreover, results replicated previously established optimal cutoffs for unimpaired groups using both the traditional (≥14) and unrounded (≥13.84) E-scores. However, the DCT did not reliably discriminate between invalid performance and multidomain cognitive impairment, indicating caution is warranted when using the DCT with patients suspected of greater cognitive impairment.

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
处理速度和记忆能力对混合神经精神病样本点计数测试分类准确性的影响。
研究目的本研究通过评估混合临床样本中认知能力未受损、单领域受损和多领域受损亚组的表现有效性分类准确性,研究了处理速度和记忆力这两种特定认知能力受损对点数计数测验(DCT)分类准确性的影响:对 348 名成年门诊患者的横断面数据进行分析,根据四项独立的标准性能效度测试 (PVT) 将其分为有效(284 人)或无效(64 人)。在有效组中建立了未受损(164 人)、单域处理速度受损(24 人)、单域记忆受损(53 人)和多域处理速度和记忆受损(43 人)临床亚组。对传统的 DCT E 分数和非整数 E 分数进行了研究:总体而言,DCT 在未受损组(曲线下面积[AUC]传统 E-score=.855;未四舍五入 E-score=.855)和单域受损组(传统 E-score AUC=.690-.754;未四舍五入 E-score AUC=.692-747)的分类准确性可接受到极佳。然而,它并不能可靠地区分多域处理速度和记忆障碍组与无效表现组(传统和非整型E-score AUC = .557):研究结果支持将 DCT 作为一种非基于记忆的独立 PVT 用于单域认知障碍,建议有记忆障碍的人使用传统 E-score≥17(未四舍五入 E-score≥16.95),有处理速度障碍的人使用传统 E-score≥19(未四舍五入 E-score≥18.08)。此外,使用传统 E 分数(≥14)和非四舍五入 E 分数(≥13.84)得出的结果与之前确定的未受损群体的最佳临界值相同。然而,DCT 并不能可靠地区分无效表现和多域认知障碍,这表明在对疑似有较大认知障碍的患者使用 DCT 时需要谨慎。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Cardiorespiratory fitness and working memory in persons with traumatic brain injury: a cross-sectional analysis. Fatigue management: a systematic review of objective measurement techniques for cognitive fatigue. Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Optimal cutoff scores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Costa Rican older adults. Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI).
×
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