Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:05:42.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid review of cognitive screening instruments in MCI: proposal for a process-based approach modification of overlapping tasks in select widely used instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2017

Unai Díaz-Orueta Open the ORCID record for Unai Díaz-Orueta [Opens in a new window] ,
Alberto Blanco-Campal  and
Teresa Burke
Unai Díaz-Orueta*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Alberto Blanco-Campal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry for the Older Person, Co. Louth (Ardee) and Co. Meath (Navan) Memory Clinic Services, Health Service Executive, Ireland
Teresa Burke
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Dr. Unai Díaz-Orueta, School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Dublin, Ireland. Phone: +353-1-700-8034. Email: [email protected], [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

A detailed neuropsychological assessment plays an important role in the diagnostic process of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). However, available brief cognitive screening tests for this clinical population are administered and interpreted based mainly, or exclusively, on total achievement scores. This score-based approach can lead to erroneous clinical interpretations unless we also pay attention to the test taking behavior or to the type of errors committed during test performance.

Methods:

The goal of the current study is to perform a rapid review of the literature regarding cognitive screening tools for dementia in primary and secondary care; this will include revisiting previously published systematic reviews on screening tools for dementia, extensive database search, and analysis of individual references cited in selected studies.

Results:

A subset of representative screening tools for dementia was identified that covers as many cognitive functions as possible. How these screening tools overlap with each other (in terms of the cognitive domains being measured and the method used to assess them) was examined and a series of process-based approach (PBA) modifications for these overlapping features was proposed, so that the changes recommended in relation to one particular cognitive task could be extrapolated to other screening tools.

Conclusion:

It is expected that future versions of cognitive screening tests, modified using a PBA, will highlight the benefits of attending to qualitative features of test performance when trying to identify subtle features suggestive of MCI and/or dementia.

Keywords

dementiacognitive assessmentMild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)screening
Type
Review Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 30 , Issue 5: Issue Theme: Brain Imaging , May 2018 , pp. 663 - 672
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2017 

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

Albert, M. S. et al. (2011). The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the national institute on aging-Alzheimer's association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 7, 270–279.Google Scholar
Cahill, S., O'Shea, E. and Pierce, M. (2012). Creating Excellence in Dementia Care. A Research Review for Ireland's National Dementia Strategy. Dublin: Trinity College.Google Scholar
Cronin-Golomb, A. (2011). Visuospatial function in Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. In Budson, A. E. and Kowall, N. W. (eds.), The Handbook of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias, 1st edn (pp. 457–482). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cullen, B., O'Neill, B., Evans, J. J., Coen, R. F. and Lawlor, B. A. (2007). A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 78, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E. and Kramer, J. H. (2001). Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Delis, D. C., Kramer, J. H., Kaplan, E. and Ober, B. A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test: Adult Version. Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Erickson, R. C. (1995). A review and critique of the process approach in neuropsychological assessment. Neuropsychology Review, 5, 223–243.Google Scholar
Evans, I., Coen, R., Burke, T. and Lawlor, B. A. (2005). Clock drawing and executive function in Alzheimer's disease. Conference paper. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 174, 80–80.Google Scholar
Hodges, J. R., Salmon, D. P. and Butters, N. (1991). The nature of the naming deficit in Alzheimer's and Huntington's disease. Brain, 114, 1547–1558.Google Scholar
Hopkins, R., Kilik, L., Day, D., Rows, C. and Hamilton, P. (2005). The Brief Kingston Standardized Cognitive assessment-Revised. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 20, 227–231.Google Scholar
Hsieh, S., Schubert, S., Hoon, C., Mioshi, E. and Hodges, J. R. (2013). Validation of the Addenbrooke's cognitive examination III in frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 36, 242.Google Scholar
Jessen, F. et al. (2014). A conceptual framework for research on subjective cognitive decline in preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 10, 844–852.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In Boll, T. and Bryant, B. K. (eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology and Brain Function: Research, Measurement, and Practice (pp. 129–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Morris, R. and Delis, D. C. (1991). WAIS-R as a Neuropsychological Instrument. Toronto, Canada: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Kokmen, E., Naessens, J. M. and Offord, K. P. (1987). A short test of mental status: description and preliminary results. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 62, 281–288.Google Scholar
Lamar, M., Rhodes, E., Wambach, D. M., Swenson, R. and Libon, D. J. (2013). Digit Span as a neuropsychological instrument of error processing. In Ashendorf, L., Swenson, R. and Libon, D. (eds.), The Boston Process Approach to Neuropsychological Assessment: A Practitioner's Guide (pp. 65–76). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leach, L., Kaplan, E., Rewilak, D. and Proulx, G. B. (2000). Kaplan Baycrest Neurocognitive Assessment (KBNA). San Antonio, TX: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lonie, J. A. et al. (2010). Predicting outcome in mild cognitive impairment: 4-year follow-up study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 197, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lonie, J. A., Tierney, K. M. and Ebmeier, K. P. (2009). Screening for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 24, 902–915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcos, G. et al. (2016). Conversion to dementia in mild cognitive impairment diagnosed with DSM-5 criteria and with Petersen's criteria. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinava, 133, 378–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milberg, W. P., Hebben, N. A. and Kaplan, E. (1986). The Boston process approach to neuropsychological assessment". In Adams, G. (ed.), Neuropsychological Assessment of Neuropsychiatric Disorders (pp. 42–65). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Molinuevo, J. L. et al. (2017). Implementation of subjective cognitive decline criteria in research studies. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 13, 296–311.Google Scholar
Nasreddine, Z. S. et al. (2005). The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53, 695–699.Google Scholar
Petersen, R. C., Caracciolo, B., Brayne, C., Gauthier, S., Jelic, V. and Fratiglioni, L. (2014). Mild cognitive impairment: a concept in evolution. Journal of Internal Medicine, 275, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Poreh, A. (2000). The quantified process approach: an emerging methodology to neuropsychological assessment. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 212– 222.Google Scholar
Price, C. C. et al. (2004). Verbal serial list learning among dementia patients with and without white matter changes: factor solutions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, S1–S8.Google Scholar
Price, C. C. et al. (2011). Clock drawing in the Montreal cognitive assessment: recommendations for dementia assessment. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 31, 179–187.Google Scholar
Randolph, C., Tierney, M. C., Mohr, E. and Chase, T. N. (1998). The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 310–319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, K. and Ritchie, C. (2012). Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) twenty years on. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 1–5.Google Scholar
Ritchie, K. and Touchon, J. (2000). Mild cognitive impairment: conceptual basis and current nosological status. The Lancet, 355, 225–228.Google Scholar
Rouleau, I., Salmon, D. and Butters, N. (1996). Longitudinal analysis of clock drawing in Alzheimer's disease patients. Brain and Cognition, 31, 17–34.Google Scholar
Ruan, Q. et al. (2017). Emerging biomarkers and screening for cognitive frailty. Aging – Clinical and Experimental Research. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s40520-017-0741-8.Google Scholar
Sachs-Ericsson, N. and Blazer, D. G. (2015). The new DSM-5 diagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder and its relation to research in mild cognitive impairment. Aging & Mental Health, 19, 2–12.Google Scholar
Stephan, B. C., Minett, T., Pagett, E., Siervo, M., Brayne, C. and McKeith, I. G. (2013). Diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in clinical trials: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 3, 1–8. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001909.Google Scholar
Storey, J. E., Rowland, J. T. J., Basic, D., Conforti, D. A. and Dickson, H. G. (2004). The Rowland universal dementia assessment scale (RUDAS): a multicultural cognitive assessment scale. International Psychogeriatrics, 16, 13–31.Google Scholar
Tariq, S. H., Tumosa, N., Chibnall, J. T., Perry, H. M III and Morley, J. E. (2006). The Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) examination for detecting mild cognitive impairment and dementia is more sensitive than the Mini-Mental status examination (MMSE) - A pilot study. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 14, 900–910.Google Scholar
Troyer, A. K. (2000). Normative data for clustering and switching on verbal fluency task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 370–378.Google Scholar
Troyer, A. K., Moscovitch, M. and Winocur, G. (1997). Clustering and switching as two components of verbal fluency: evidence from younger and older healthy adults. Neuropsychology, 11, 138–146.Google Scholar
Vaughan, R. M., Coen, R. F., Kenny, R. A. and Lawlor, B. A. (2016). Preservation of the semantic verbal fluency advantage in a large population-based sample: normative data from the TILDA study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 22, 570–576.Google Scholar
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W. S., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuy, P. M. and Kleijnen, K. (2003). The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3, 25.Google Scholar
Winblad, B. et al. (2004). Mild cognitive impairment–beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the international working group on mild cognitive impairment. Journal of Internal Medicine, 256, 240–246.Google Scholar