测量认知筛查量表随时间的变化:评估用于痴呆症筛查的 ACE-III、CBI-R 和 EMQ 的心理测量特性。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-13 DOI:10.1159/000534313
Donnchadh F Murphy, Jonathan P Scott, Rupert F Noad
{"title":"测量认知筛查量表随时间的变化:评估用于痴呆症筛查的 ACE-III、CBI-R 和 EMQ 的心理测量特性。","authors":"Donnchadh F Murphy, Jonathan P Scott, Rupert F Noad","doi":"10.1159/000534313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive screening measures are an established part of a dementia assessment and often include measures of subjective difficulties, e.g., Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ), informant-rated difficulty, Cambridge Behavioural Inventory - Revised (CBI-R), and objective cognitive assessments like Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III). While these measures have validity for the purpose of diagnosing dementia, in clinical practice they are often used outside of their evidence base for the purpose of cognitive re-assessment. The current study sought to evaluate the psychometric properties for the repeated use of these assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a longitudinal design, which included 49 healthy controls, 33 people with subjective memory difficulties, and 10 people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) being assessed twice, with approximately a 1-year interval between assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EMQ has adequate re-test reliability (r = 0.78), but people with an AD diagnosis rated their memory as better than those with SMD, making it unsuitable as a measure. The CBI-R had moderate re-test reliability (r = 0.62). However, deterioration on the CBI-R was not useful for diagnosing AD. The ACE-III has high re-test reliability (r = 0.89). A change of five was associated with reasonable classification accuracy for identifying AD and achieved statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a 1-year interval, of the three measures used in this study, only the ACE-III total score may be a useful measure of change over time, although it should be applied cautiously due to the lack of representativeness of the sample, and change scores should always be triangulated with other forms of evidence of deterioration.</p>","PeriodicalId":11126,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"47-56"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring Change over Time on Cognitive Screening Measures: An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of ACE-III, CBI-R, and EMQ for the Purpose of Dementia Screening.\",\"authors\":\"Donnchadh F Murphy, Jonathan P Scott, Rupert F Noad\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000534313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive screening measures are an established part of a dementia assessment and often include measures of subjective difficulties, e.g., Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ), informant-rated difficulty, Cambridge Behavioural Inventory - Revised (CBI-R), and objective cognitive assessments like Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III). While these measures have validity for the purpose of diagnosing dementia, in clinical practice they are often used outside of their evidence base for the purpose of cognitive re-assessment. The current study sought to evaluate the psychometric properties for the repeated use of these assessments.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study used a longitudinal design, which included 49 healthy controls, 33 people with subjective memory difficulties, and 10 people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) being assessed twice, with approximately a 1-year interval between assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The EMQ has adequate re-test reliability (r = 0.78), but people with an AD diagnosis rated their memory as better than those with SMD, making it unsuitable as a measure. The CBI-R had moderate re-test reliability (r = 0.62). However, deterioration on the CBI-R was not useful for diagnosing AD. The ACE-III has high re-test reliability (r = 0.89). A change of five was associated with reasonable classification accuracy for identifying AD and achieved statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using a 1-year interval, of the three measures used in this study, only the ACE-III total score may be a useful measure of change over time, although it should be applied cautiously due to the lack of representativeness of the sample, and change scores should always be triangulated with other forms of evidence of deterioration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"47-56\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534313\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000534313","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知筛查措施是痴呆症评估的既定组成部分,通常包括主观困难测量(如日常记忆问卷(EMQ))、信息评定困难(如剑桥行为量表(CBI-R))和客观认知评估(如艾登布鲁克认知检查(ACE-III))。虽然这些测量方法在诊断痴呆症方面具有一定的有效性,但在临床实践中,它们往往被用于认知再评估,而非其证据基础。本研究旨在评估重复使用这些评估的心理测量特性。本研究采用纵向设计,包括对 49 名健康对照者、33 名主观记忆障碍(SMD)患者和 10 名阿尔茨海默氏症(AD)患者进行两次评估,两次评估之间的间隔约为一年。结果显示EMQ具有足够的重测可靠性(r=0.78),但被诊断出患有老年痴呆症的人对自己记忆力的评价要好于有主观记忆障碍的人,因此EMQ不适合作为一项测量指标。CBI-R具有中等程度的重测可靠性(r=0.62)。但是,CBI-R 的恶化对诊断注意力缺失症没有帮助。ACE-III 的重测可靠性较高(r=0.89)。5分的变化与识别注意力缺失症的合理分类准确性相关,并具有统计学意义。结论以一年为间隔,在本研究使用的三种测量方法中,只有 ACE-III 总分可能是衡量随时间变化的有用指标,但由于样本缺乏代表性,应用时应谨慎,而且变化分数应始终与其他形式的病情恶化证据进行三角测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Measuring Change over Time on Cognitive Screening Measures: An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of ACE-III, CBI-R, and EMQ for the Purpose of Dementia Screening.

Introduction: Cognitive screening measures are an established part of a dementia assessment and often include measures of subjective difficulties, e.g., Everyday Memory Questionnaire (EMQ), informant-rated difficulty, Cambridge Behavioural Inventory - Revised (CBI-R), and objective cognitive assessments like Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III). While these measures have validity for the purpose of diagnosing dementia, in clinical practice they are often used outside of their evidence base for the purpose of cognitive re-assessment. The current study sought to evaluate the psychometric properties for the repeated use of these assessments.

Methods: This study used a longitudinal design, which included 49 healthy controls, 33 people with subjective memory difficulties, and 10 people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) being assessed twice, with approximately a 1-year interval between assessments.

Results: The EMQ has adequate re-test reliability (r = 0.78), but people with an AD diagnosis rated their memory as better than those with SMD, making it unsuitable as a measure. The CBI-R had moderate re-test reliability (r = 0.62). However, deterioration on the CBI-R was not useful for diagnosing AD. The ACE-III has high re-test reliability (r = 0.89). A change of five was associated with reasonable classification accuracy for identifying AD and achieved statistical significance.

Conclusion: Using a 1-year interval, of the three measures used in this study, only the ACE-III total score may be a useful measure of change over time, although it should be applied cautiously due to the lack of representativeness of the sample, and change scores should always be triangulated with other forms of evidence of deterioration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: As a unique forum devoted exclusively to the study of cognitive dysfunction, ''Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders'' concentrates on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s chorea and other neurodegenerative diseases. The journal draws from diverse related research disciplines such as psychogeriatrics, neuropsychology, clinical neurology, morphology, physiology, genetic molecular biology, pathology, biochemistry, immunology, pharmacology and pharmaceutics. Strong emphasis is placed on the publication of research findings from animal studies which are complemented by clinical and therapeutic experience to give an overall appreciation of the field.
期刊最新文献
Sleep apnea risk, subjective cognitive decline, and cognitive performance: Findings from the Boston Latino Aging Study (BLAST). Hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves motor symptoms, sleep, and cognitive dysfunctions in Parkinson's disease. THE ASSOCIATION OF IMPAIRED VIBRATION SENSATION IN THE LOWER LIMB WITH TESTS OF COGNITION IN OLDER PEOPLE The Cardiovascular Health Study. Effectiveness of the Music Therapy in Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Feasibility and psychometric properties of Integrated Care for Older People Screening Tool for Taiwanese (ICOPES-TW) cognitive screening test.
×
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