We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Information on the time spent completing cognitive testing is often collected, but such data are not typically considered when quantifying cognition in large-scale community-based surveys. We sought to evaluate the added value of timing data over and above traditional cognitive scores for the measurement of cognition in older adults.
Method:
We used data from the Longitudinal Aging Study in India-Diagnostic Assessment of Dementia (LASI-DAD) study (N = 4,091), to assess the added value of timing data over and above traditional cognitive scores, using item-specific regression models for 36 cognitive test items. Models were adjusted for age, gender, interviewer, and item score.
Results:
Compared to Quintile 3 (median time), taking longer to complete specific items was associated (p < 0.05) with lower cognitive performance for 67% (Quintile 5) and 28% (Quintile 4) of items. Responding quickly (Quintile 1) was associated with higher cognitive performance for 25% of simpler items (e.g., orientation for year), but with lower cognitive functioning for 63% of items requiring higher-order processing (e.g., digit span test). Results were consistent in a range of different analyses adjusting for factors including education, hearing impairment, and language of administration and in models using splines rather than quintiles.
Conclusions:
Response times from cognitive testing may contain important information on cognition not captured in traditional scoring. Incorporation of this information has the potential to improve existing estimates of cognitive functioning.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.