Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:42:49.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Validity of a novel computerized screening test system for mild cognitive impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2018

Jin-Hyuck Park ,
Minye Jung ,
Jongbae Kim ,
Hae Yean Park ,
Jung-Ran Kim  and
Ji-Hyuk Park
Jin-Hyuck Park
Affiliation:
Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, Korea Advanced Institutes of Science and Technology, Daejeon, South Korea
Minye Jung
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea
Jongbae Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea
Hae Yean Park
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea
Jung-Ran Kim
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea
Ji-Hyuk Park*
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Ji-Hyuk Park, Ph.D., O.T., Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Yonsei University, 1, Yeonsedae-gil, Heungeop-myeon, Wonju-si, Gangwon-do, South Korea. Phone: +82-33-760-2583; Fax: +82-33-760-2496. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

The mobile screening test system for screening mild cognitive impairment (mSTS-MCI) was developed for clinical use. However, the clinical usefulness of mSTS-MCI to detect elderly with MCI from those who are cognitively healthy has yet to be validated. Moreover, the comparability between this system and traditional screening tests for MCI has not been evaluated.

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the mSTS-MCI and confirm the cut-off scores to detect MCI.

Method:

The data were collected from 107 healthy elderly people and 74 elderly people with MCI. Concurrent validity was examined using the Korean version of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-K) as a gold standard test, and test–retest reliability was investigated using 30 of the study participants at four-week intervals. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV) were confirmed through Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the cut-off scores for elderly people with MCI were identified.

Results:

Concurrent validity showed statistically significant correlations between the mSTS-MCI and MoCA-K and test–rests reliability indicated high correlation. As a result of screening predictability, the mSTS-MCI had a higher NPV than the MoCA-K.

Conclusions:

The mSTS-MCI was identified as a system with a high degree of validity and reliability. In addition, the mSTS-MCI showed high screening predictability, indicating it can be used in the clinical field as a screening test system for mild cognitive impairment.

Keywords

screening testmild cognitive impairmentcognitive assessment
Type
Original Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 30 , Issue 10: Issue Theme: Mild Cognitive Impairment , October 2018 , pp. 1455 - 1463
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, S., Arnold, R., Thompson, S. A., Graham, K. S. and Hodges, J. R. (2008). Naming of objects, faces and buildings in mild cognitive impairment. Cortex, 44, 746–752. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.02.002.Google Scholar
Ahn, H.-J. et al. (2010). Seoul neuropsychological screening battery-dementia version (SBSB-D): a useful tool for assessing and monitoring cognitive impairments in dementia patients. Journal of Korean Medicine Science, 25, 1071–1076. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2010.25.7.1071.Google Scholar
Albert, M. S., Moss, M. B., Tanz, R. and Jones, K. (2001). Preclinical prediction of AD using neuropsychological tests. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 631–639. doi:10.1017/S1355617701755105.Google Scholar
Claque, F., Dudas, R. B., Thompson, S. A., Graham, K. S. and Hodges, J. R. (2005). Multidimensional measures of person knowledge and spatial associative learning: can these be applied to the differentiation of Alzheimer's disease from frontotemporal and vascular dementia?. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1338–1350. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.023.Google Scholar
De Jager, C. A., Schrijnemaekers, A. C., Honey, T. E. and Budge, M. M. (2009). Detection of MCI in the clinic: evaluation of the sensitivity and specificity of a computerised test battery, the Hopkins verbal learning test and the MMSE. Age and Ageing, 38, 455–460. doi:10.1093/ageing/afp068.Google Scholar
De Lepeleire, J., Heyrman, J., Baro, F. and Buntinx, F. (2005). A combination of tests for the diagnosis of dementia had a significant diagnostic value. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 217–225. doi: 10.1016/j,jclinepi.2004.07.005.Google Scholar
Falleti, M. G., Maruff, P., Collie, A. and Darby, A. D. (2006). Practice effects associated with the repeated assessment of cognitive function using the CogState battery at 10-minute, one week and one month test-retest interval. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 1095–1112. doi:10.1080/13803395500205718.Google Scholar
Fluss, R., Faraggi, D. and Reiser, B. (2005). Estimation of the Youden index and its associated cutoff point. Biometrical Journal, 47, 458–472. doi:10.1002/bimj.200410135Google Scholar
Folstein, M. F. and Folstein, S. E. (1975). Mini-Mental state: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6.Google Scholar
Han, J. W. et al. (2010). A normative study of the mini-mental state examination for dementia screening (MMSE-DS) and its short form (SMMSE-DS) in the Korean elderly. Korean Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 27–37.Google Scholar
Jung, Y.-K. (2010). The Utility of Montreal Cognitive Assessment – Korean Version for the Detection of Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (Master's thesis). Kwangju: Chonnam National University.Google Scholar
Kwon, Y. C. and Park, J. H. (1989). Korean version of mini-mental state examination (MMSE-K) part I: development of the test for the elderly. Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association, 28, 125–135.Google Scholar
Lee, J.-Y. et al. (2008). Brief screening for mild cognitive impairment in elderly outpatient clinic: validation of the Korean version of the Montreal cognitive assessment. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 21, 104–110. doi:10.1177/0891988708316855.Google Scholar
Memoria, C. M., Yassuda, M. S., Nakano, E. Y. and Forlenza, O. V. (2014). Contributions of the computer-administered neuropsychological screen for mild cognitive impairment (CANS-MCI) for the diagnosis of MCI in Brazil. International Psychogeriatrics, 26, 1483–1491. doi: 10.1017/S104161024000726.Google Scholar
Morris, J. C. et al. (2001). Mild cognitive impairment represents early-stage Alzheimer disease. Archives of Neurology, 58, 397–405. doi:10.1001/archneur.58.3. 397.Google Scholar
Nasreddline, Z. S. et al. (2005). The Montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 53, 695–699.Google Scholar
Park, J. H. and Park, J. H. (2016). A systematic review on computerized cognitive function test for screening mild cognitive impairment. The Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy, 24, 19–31. doi: 10.14519/jksot.2016.24.2.02.Google Scholar
Park, J.-H. (2017). Development of a Mobile Cognitive Function Test System for Screening Mild Cognitive Impairment (Doctoral thesis). Wonju: Yonsei University.Google Scholar
Park, J.-H. and Heo, S.-Y. (2017). Mobile screening test system for mild cognitive impairment: concurrent validity with the Montreal cognitive assessment and inter-rater reliability. Korean Society of Cognitive Rehabilitation, 6, 25–42.Google Scholar
Petersen, R. C. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 183–194. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2004.01388.xGoogle Scholar
Petersen, R. C., Smith, G. E., Waring, S. C., Ivnik, R. J., Tangalos, E. G. and Kokmen, E. (1999). Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Archives of Neurology, 56, 303–308.Google Scholar
Phillips, M., Rogers, P., Haworth, J., Bayer, A. and Tales, A. (2013). Intra-individual reaction time variability in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: gender, processing load and speed factors. PLoS One, 8, e65712. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065712.Google Scholar
Plassman, B. L. et al. (2007). Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study. Neuroepidemiology, 29, 125–132. doi:10.1159/000109998.Google Scholar
Tierney, M. C. and Lerner, M. A. (2010). Computerized cognitive assessment in primary care to identify patients with suspected cognitive impairment. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 20, 823–832. doi:10.3233/JAD-2010-091672.Google Scholar
Wind, A. W., Schellevis, F. G., Van Staveren, G., Scholten, R. P., Jonker, C. and Van Eijk, J. T. (1997). Limitations of the mini-mental state examination in diagnosing dementia in general practice. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 12, 101–108. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1166(199701)12:1<101::AID-GPS469>3.3.CO;2-I.3.3.CO;2-I.>Google Scholar
Wouters, H. et al. (2014). Does adaptive cognitive testing combine efficiency with precision? Prospective findings. Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, 25, 595–603. doi:10.3233/JAD-2011-101743.Google Scholar
Zygouris, S. and Tsolaki, M. (2015). Computerized cognitive testing for older adults: a review. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementia, 30, 13–28. doi: 10.1177/1533317514522852.Google Scholar