基于应用程序的泰国老年人认知筛选测试的验证。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1159/000543309
Benjapa Yangyuensathaporn, Supakorn Chansaengpetch, Angkana Jongsawadipatana, Weerasak Muangpaisan
{"title":"基于应用程序的泰国老年人认知筛选测试的验证。","authors":"Benjapa Yangyuensathaporn, Supakorn Chansaengpetch, Angkana Jongsawadipatana, Weerasak Muangpaisan","doi":"10.1159/000543309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The cognitive screening usually requires a face-to-face format, which might limit its use in many circumstances. We aimed to develop a new application-based cognitive screening test (ACST) to serve as an accessible and valid tool in the community.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ACST was developed by using paired association and digit span tests. This test was administered to 70 cognitively normal participants, 62 participants with MCI, and 64 participants with dementia. The 2nd edition of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-2) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were collected by certified psychologists. The ACST was self-administered by the participants, with a clinician providing instructions for those with dementia or technological limitations. The diagnosis was made according to DSM-5 criteria by an experienced geriatric neurologist blinded to the application score. Content validity, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and correlations between application scores and MMSE-2 and MoCA scores were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from non-normal participants were 92.9% and 70%, respectively (cutoff point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing between the cognitively normal group and the MCI group were 87.1% and 70%, respectively (cut point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from participants with dementia were 93.8% and 82.9%, respectively (cut point ≤6). A cutoff point ≤6 was considered suitable for participants aged 75 years or older or with 6 or fewer years of education.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The ACST is an easy-to-use and valid tool for cognitive screening in older Thai adults in clinical practice. Patients with an application score ≤7 are considered to be at risk of cognitive impairment and to require further evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11126,"journal":{"name":"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of an Application-Based Cognitive Screening Test for Older Thai Adults.\",\"authors\":\"Benjapa Yangyuensathaporn, Supakorn Chansaengpetch, Angkana Jongsawadipatana, Weerasak Muangpaisan\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000543309\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The cognitive screening usually requires a face-to-face format, which might limit its use in many circumstances. We aimed to develop a new application-based cognitive screening test (ACST) to serve as an accessible and valid tool in the community.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The ACST was developed by using paired association and digit span tests. This test was administered to 70 cognitively normal participants, 62 participants with MCI, and 64 participants with dementia. The 2nd edition of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-2) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were collected by certified psychologists. The ACST was self-administered by the participants, with a clinician providing instructions for those with dementia or technological limitations. The diagnosis was made according to DSM-5 criteria by an experienced geriatric neurologist blinded to the application score. Content validity, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and correlations between application scores and MMSE-2 and MoCA scores were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from non-normal participants were 92.9% and 70%, respectively (cutoff point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing between the cognitively normal group and the MCI group were 87.1% and 70%, respectively (cut point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from participants with dementia were 93.8% and 82.9%, respectively (cut point ≤6). A cutoff point ≤6 was considered suitable for participants aged 75 years or older or with 6 or fewer years of education.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The ACST is an easy-to-use and valid tool for cognitive screening in older Thai adults in clinical practice. Patients with an application score ≤7 are considered to be at risk of cognitive impairment and to require further evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11126,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"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/10.1159/000543309\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"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/10.1159/000543309","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知筛查通常需要面对面的形式,这可能会限制其在许多情况下的使用。我们的目标是开发一种新的基于应用程序的认知筛选测试(ACST),作为社区中可访问和有效的工具。方法采用配对联想测验和数字广度测验编制ACST。这项测试对70名认知正常的参与者、62名轻度认知障碍参与者和64名痴呆症参与者进行了测试。第二版迷你精神状态检查(MMSE-2)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)由注册心理学家收集。ACST由临床医师进行。诊断是根据DSM-V标准,由一位经验丰富的老年神经学家盲目的应用评分。分析内容效度、重测信度、被测者信度以及应用分数与MMSE-2和MoCA分数的相关性。结果识别认知正常与异常受试者的敏感性和特异性分别为92.9%和70%(截断点≤7),识别认知正常组与MCI组的敏感性和特异性分别为87.1%和70%(截断点≤7),识别认知正常与痴呆患者的敏感性和特异性分别为93.8%和82.9%。分别(截断点≤6)。截断点≤6被认为适用于年龄在75岁及以上或受教育年限在6年及以下的参与者。ACST在临床实践中是一种易于使用和有效的泰国老年人认知筛查工具。应用评分≤7分的患者被认为存在认知障碍风险,需要进一步评估。
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
Validation of an Application-Based Cognitive Screening Test for Older Thai Adults.

Introduction: The cognitive screening usually requires a face-to-face format, which might limit its use in many circumstances. We aimed to develop a new application-based cognitive screening test (ACST) to serve as an accessible and valid tool in the community.

Methods: The ACST was developed by using paired association and digit span tests. This test was administered to 70 cognitively normal participants, 62 participants with MCI, and 64 participants with dementia. The 2nd edition of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE-2) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were collected by certified psychologists. The ACST was self-administered by the participants, with a clinician providing instructions for those with dementia or technological limitations. The diagnosis was made according to DSM-5 criteria by an experienced geriatric neurologist blinded to the application score. Content validity, test-retest reliability, interrater reliability, and correlations between application scores and MMSE-2 and MoCA scores were analyzed.

Results: The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from non-normal participants were 92.9% and 70%, respectively (cutoff point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing between the cognitively normal group and the MCI group were 87.1% and 70%, respectively (cut point ≤7). The sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing cognitively normal participants from participants with dementia were 93.8% and 82.9%, respectively (cut point ≤6). A cutoff point ≤6 was considered suitable for participants aged 75 years or older or with 6 or fewer years of education.

Discussion: The ACST is an easy-to-use and valid tool for cognitive screening in older Thai adults in clinical practice. Patients with an application score ≤7 are considered to be at risk of cognitive impairment and to require further evaluation.

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
Deciphering Perspectives: A European survey on clinical decision support tools for dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Diversity in United States dementia prevention trials: An updated systematic review of eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies. Erratum. Structural neuroimaging correlates of neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic literature review. Longitudinal analysis of objective and self-reported cognitive functions in individuals with subjective cognitive decline.
×
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