Although remote neuropsychological assessments have become increasingly common, current research on the reliability and validity of scores obtained from remote at-home assessments are sparse. No studies have examined remote at-home administration of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) even though this battery is being used to track over 45,000 participants over time. This study aimed to determine whether remote UDS scores can be combined with in-person data by assessing whether rates of score changes over time (i.e., reliability) differed by modality and whether remote and in-person scores converge (i.e., validity).

Data for UDS visits conducted from 09/2005 to 12/2021 from 43 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers were examined. We identified 311 participants (254 cognitively unimpaired, 7 impaired - not mild cognitive impairment, 25 mild cognitive impairment, 25 dementia) who completed 2 remote UDS visits 0.868 years apart (SD = 0.200 years). First, initial remote scores were correlated with most recent in-person scores. Second, we examined whether rates of change differed between remote and in-person assessments. Repeated-measure one-way ANOVA were used to compare rates calculated from the same individual from remote versus inperson assessments. We additionally identified a demographically- and visit-number-matched group of 311 participants with in-person UDS visits given that all remote visits occurred after in-person visits; one-way ANOVAs were used to compare remote rates to rates from in-person assessments from the matched in-person group. Finally, accuracy of remote scores were assessed by quantifying the difference between the actual remote scores and predicted scores based on repeated in-person assessments. These residual values were then divided by the maximum score to form error rates.

Remote UDS score on MoCA-blind, Craft story immediate and delayed recall, digits forward, digits backward, phonemic fluency (F, L, F + L), and semantic fluency (animals, vegetables, animals + vegetables) were all highly correlated (all ps < 0.001) with scores obtained from preceding in-person assessments. At the group level, within-subject comparisons between remote and in-person rates of change were not significantly different for 7/11 tests; between-subject comparisons were not significantly different for 10/11 tests. Vegetable fluency had slightly reduced rates of change with remote assessment compared to inperson assessments. Critically, remote scores were consistent with predicted scores based on the trajectory of each subject’s in-person assessments with group mean error rates ranging from 0.7% (Craft Delayed Recall) to 3.9% (Phonemic fluency - F).

Our results demonstrate adequate reliability and convergent validity for remotely administered verbally based tests from the NACC UDS battery. Importantly, our findings provide some support for combining remote and in-person scores for studies that transitioned to remote testing due to COVID-19. However, future research is needed for tests with visual stimuli that assess visual memory, visuospatial function, and aspects of executive function.

Associative memory is impacted early in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Poorer performance on associative memory tests has been related to greater amyloid and regional tau burden in preclinical AD. Our group previously examined the association of brain pathology and performance on the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) in Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease (ADAD), finding that associative memory summary scores distinguished non-demented mutation carriers from non-carriers several years before clinical onset of cognitive impairment. In the current study, we examined whether FCSRT learning slopes were associated with brain pathology in a sample of ADAD carriers and non-carriers.

There were 119 participants including 57 non-demented carriers of the Colombian kindred with the Presenilin1 E280A mutation and 62 non-carrier family members (mean age= 36.3, 60% female). Participants were administered the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), a measure of global cognitive status, and the FCSRT, which consists of three trials in which participants are asked to freely recall the same list of 16 items. It is a well-established measure known to be sensitive to early changes in AD. A subsample of 69 participants (32 carriers and 37 non-carriers) underwent positron emission tomography (PET) to measure in vivo cortical amyloid-beta (Pittsburgh compound B, PiB), and regional tau (Flortaucipir, FTP) burden in entorhinal and precuneus regions, which are among the earliest sites of tau accumulation in this ADAD population. Mann Whitney U tests, Spearman correlations, and chi-square tests were used to examine group differences and relations among variables of interest. Learning slope was calculated by subtracting the number of items freely recalled in FCSRT Trial 1 from the number of items freely recalled in Trial 3.

Compared to non-carriers, carriers had greater cortical amyloid-ß and regional tau burden, lower MMSE scores (mean [SD]: carriers= 27.5 [2.7]; non-carriers= 28.8 [1.0]), and lower scores on total immediate/ delayed free/ cued recall scores on the FCSRT (all p<.01). The groups did not differ on age, sex, or education level (all p> 0.05). In the whole sample and in carriers only, we found that higher MMSE scores were associated with higher learning slope, meaning faster learning (whole group p= 0.25, p= 0.006; carriers p= 0.30, p=0.029). In the whole sample, we found that lower learning slope was associated with higher levels of amyloid (p=-.34, p=.006) and tau in the left, right, and bilateral precuneus region (p=-.43, p<.001; p=-.46, p<.001; p=-.45, p<.001). In carriers only, lower learning slope was associated with higher tau burden in the left, right, and bilateral precuneus specifically (p=-.43, p=.017; p=-.48, p=.008; p=-.46, p=.010, respectively). No significant associations were found in non-carriers.

These findings suggest that learning curves on an associative memory test may be sensitive to preclinical pathological changes in AD, specifically within the precuneus, a brain region known to be involved in cue reactivity, episodic memory retrieval, and mental imagery strategies. Future studies with larger samples are warranted to further examine associations between the FCSRT learning curves and regional tau accumulation in individuals with ADAD.

The Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) is the gold standard assessment of adults with disorders of consciousness (DoC); however few studies have examined the psychometric properties of the CRS-R in pediatric populations. This study aimed to demonstrate preliminary intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of the CRS-R in children with acquired brain injury (ABI).

Participants included 3 individuals (ages 10, 15, and 17 years) previously admitted to an inpatient pediatric neurorehabilitation unit with DoC after ABI who were followed in an outpatient brain injury clinic due to ongoing severe disability. ABI etiology included traumatic brain injury (TBI; n=2) and encephalitis (n=1). Study participation took place on average 4.6 years after injury (range 2-9). The Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, Pediatric Version (GOS-E Peds), a measure of outcome after pediatric brain injury, was administered as part of screening. Two participants were placed in the GOS-E Peds “lower severe disability” category (i.e., score of 6) and one was placed in the “upper severe disability” category (i.e., score of 5). The CRS-R includes 6 subscales measuring responsivity including Auditory (range 0-4), Visual (range 05), Motor (range 0-6), Oromotor/Verbal (range 03), Communication (range 0-2), and Arousal (range 0-3) with higher scores indicating higherlevel function. Subscales are totaled for a CRS-R Total score. Behaviors shown during the CRS-R are used to determine state of DoC [Vegetative State (VS), Minimally Conscious State (MCS) or emergence from a minimally conscious state (eMCS)] based on 2002 Aspen Guidelines. Participants were administered the CRS-R three consecutive times on the same day. Administrations were completed by two raters in this order: Rater 1 (1A), Rater 1 (1B) and Rater 2. Intra-rater reliability was deemed by percent agreement across the 6 subscales between Rater 1A and 1B. Inter-rater reliability was deemed by percent agreement across the 6 subscales between 1A and 2.

Mean CRS-R Total score for Rater 1A was 22 (SD=1.73, range 20-23), Rater 1B was 22 (SD=1.73, range 20-23), and Rater 2 was 21.33 (SD=2.08, range 19-23). Intra-rater reliability was 100% and inter-rater reliability was 94% across all subscales. All participants were deemed eMCS at all 3 ratings.

Data from this very small sample of children suggests that the CRS-R demonstrates both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability in patients with a history of DoC after ABI. Given that all children were at the high end of the scale (eMCS), further research is needed with a larger sample of children with a range of states of DoC.

This study examines the clinical validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery measures in patients with oncological diagnoses and tumor predisposition syndromes, including Neurofibromatosis, Type 1 (NF1).

Participants included 158 patients (61% male, 67% White) ages 3 to 25 years (M = 8.38, SD = 4.32) who underwent neuropsychological evaluation between 2019 and 2022. Patients with brain tumors (n = 50) and leukemias (n = 49) accounted for 2/3 of the sample. The remainder had solid tumors, lymphomas, or cancer predisposition syndrome. Forty-eight had a diagnosis of NF1. Performance-based measures of attention, executive functioning, and processing speed were administered as part of neuropsychological evaluations. Patients were administered between 1 to 4 NIH Toolbox Cognition measures, including Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Flanker), Dimensional Change Card Sort Test (DCCS), Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (PCCS), and List Sorting Test. Parent-reported measures of attention and EF were also obtained. Z-scores were used to compare performance across measures that assessed equivalent constructs. The rates of weak performance (>1 SD below the mean) using Toolbox measures were compared to rates of weak performance on traditional neuropsychological measures (e.g., Digit Span), and rates of functional impairment (e.g., parent-reported concerns, ADHD diagnosis).

FSIQ, Coding, and NEPSY Inhibition correlated with all 4 Toolbox measures, while Digit Span correlated with List Sorting, DCCS, and Flanker. DCCS and PCCS correlated with verbal fluency measures. NF1 patients scored lower than non-NF1 patients on Flanker, F(1,126) = 13.01, p<.001 and DCCS, F(1,150) = 6.85, p = .01. Toolbox performance did not differ significantly by age group. Rates of identified weakness were relatively similar on Toolbox measures, some traditional measures, and parent-reported attention problems. In identifying those with and without weakness, the agreement between Flanker and other measures ranged from 52% (Auditory Attention) to 66% (Coding). Agreement between DCCS and traditional measures ranged from 47% (Letter Fluency) to 80% (Switching). For PCCS, concordance ranged from 45% (Semantic Fluency) to 69% (Switching). List Sorting had 80% agreement with Digit Span and Coding.

List Sorting had the highest agreement with parent-reported attention problems (76%), EF problems (72%), and ADHD diagnosis (79%). There was relatively high concurrence between DCCS and ADHD diagnosis (69%) and parent-reported attention problems (60%) and EF problems (65%) and between Flanker and ADHD diagnosis (67%). PCCS had less agreement with functional outcomes, ranging from 49% for EF problems to 58% for attention problems and ADHD diagnosis. In comparison, Digit Span had 64% agreement for EF problems, 70% for attention problems, and 73% for ADHD diagnosis.

The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery can be used to identify neurocognitive weaknesses in pediatric oncology patients and provide clinically meaningful data. Evaluation of the Toolbox measures’ sensitivity to change over time is warranted, as monitoring the progression of cognitive late effects is particularly salient in cancer survivorship.

The Children’s Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2) is a rating scale designed to assess domains of communication skills with emphasis on pragmatics (Bishop, 2006). The CCC comprises 10 subtests addressing various aspects of oral communication skills: Speech, Syntax, Semantics, Coherence, Initiation, Scripted Language, Context, Nonverbal Communication, Social Relations, and Interests. In a study conducted on the original CCC, Geurts et al. (2004) found that when compared to normal controls, pragmatic difficulties occurred in children with either high functioning autism (HFA) or ADHD. Since the initial version of the CCC, no study has examined whether the revised version can differentiate children with HFA, ADHD, and LD, the purpose of the present study. Focus was on derived factors of the structure/content of language and the pragmatics of language.

Forty-one participants grouped according to diagnosis were drawn from two archival data pools, one adapted from a previous study conducted by Casey and Scott (2016) and the other from a set of anonymized patients from a neuropsychological clinic. Fourteen participants met clinical criteria for autism (Mage = 11.95), 12 participants met criteria for ADHD without co-morbid disorders (Mage = 9.5), and 15 participants met criteria for a learning disability involving reading, writing, math, or some combination (Mage = 10.13). Group-specific descriptive statistics were computed for the participants’ age, full scale intelligence quotient (IQ), and General Communication Composite (GCC). Two factor scores were computed, one composed of the subtests that constitute the structure/content aspects of language (Speech, Syntax, Semantics, and Coherence) and one composed of the pragmatic aspects of language (Initiation, Nonverbal Communication, Social Relations, and Interests), an area of particular weakness in HFA. Independent samples ANOVAs were conducted on both factor scores to determine whether the CCC-2 could differentiate the three groups. Post-hoc comparisons were planned for the subtests comprising the factor(s) that differentiated the groups.

Participants in the ADHD (M = 9.45, SD = 2.45) group were significantly younger than those in the HFA group (M = 11.95, SD = 2.24) and LD group (M = 10.13, SD = 2.58), the latter two not differing significantly. The groups did not differ significantly on IQ, nor on the structure/content factor. On the pragmatic factor, the LD group (M = 10.18, SD = 9.91) had significantly higher scores than the ADHD group (M = 7.79, SD = 6.54), which in turn, had significantly higher scores than the HFA group (M = 5.48, SD = 8.26), F(2, 38) = 17.81, p < .01. Within this composite, the same pattern was shown on Nonverbal Communication, F(2, 38) = 9.29, p < .01, and Interests, F(2, 38) = 17.81, p < .01.

Compared to children with an academically-based learning disability, children with ADHD and HFA demonstrated pragmatic difficulties on the CCC-2. Although there was overlap between the pragmatic language characteristics of children with ADHD and children with HFA, the CCC-2 demonstrated utility in distinguishing the two disorders on certain aspects of communication skills, suggesting that it is a useful tool in differential diagnosis.

Extant literature suggests significant heterogeneity in recovery trajectories after experiencing a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) during childhood (Moran et al., 2016). The Cognitive and Linguistic Scale (CALS) is a promising non-norm-referenced measure designed for serial monitoring within an inpatient rehabilitation setting that may optimize prediction of acute recovery and long-term neuropsychological functioning. To date, the CALS has primarily been examined in the context of injury characteristics such as severity and etiology (e.g., Slomine et al., 2016), and it is unclear what non-injury factors may be relevant to consider. Using archival data gathered from an inpatient pediatric neurorehabilitation program, this study examined associations between the CALS and select sociodemographic factors to better inform the clinical utility of the measure.

Participants included 56 youth (46% BIPOC, 66% male) aged 2-17 years (M = 12.40, SD = 3.99) who were admitted for moderate to severe TBI to an inpatient rehabilitation program at a regional tertiary care children’s hospital. Data extracted from medical records included demographic information (i.e., age at injury, sex, ethnoracial identity, address, initial Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) rating, CALS at admission, and full-scale IQ (FSIQ) at discharge. GCS was used as a proxy for injury severity. Residential addresses were geocoded and area-level median income was used as a proxy for familial socioeconomic status (SES). A multiple regression model was utilized to parse the individual contributions of demographic variables) on initial CALS performance while accounting for injury severity. Parallel regression models were used to determine whether patient characteristics moderate the association between initial CALS performance and cognitive functioning at discharge.

Preliminary analyses demonstrated that there were no significant associations between GCS and demographic variables, ps > .05. Patient age at injury was significantly associated with CALS total score at admission above and beyond injury severity and other demographic characteristics, t (31) = 2.55, p = .016, such that older age was associated with higher initial CALS scores. Results of moderator analyses between CALS and patient characteristics showed a significant main effect of injury severity, such that higher GCS was associated with higher FSIQ at discharge across models, ps < .05. No significant interactions were identified.

These findings provide additional evidence for the generalizability of the CALS and further characterize its associations with non-injury factors, which is important for better understanding aspects that contribute to recovery trajectories and outcomes after moderate to severe TBI. Given the longstanding challenges in regard to the validity of neuropsychological assessment for diverse groups, it is critical to explicitly examine cultural context when considering the clinical utility of a measure. A limitation of the current study is the utilization of broad demographic information due to limited availability of sociocultural data. Future research should examine more granular and culturally-specific variables that may impact CALS performance (e.g., educational attainment, linguistic considerations), beyond using broad-based demographic data as a proxy for sociocultural factors. Another important next step is to utilize serial administrations of the CALS to examine the impact of sociocultural factors on recovery trajectories following TBI.

There are approximately 1.5 million Japanese and Japanese Americans in the United States, with the Japanese population increasing steadily over the past two decades. Given the growing number of the Japanese population, it is likely that a clinical neuropsychologist may encounter a Japanese patient, particularly for neurocognitive disorder evaluations given the aging population. Literature has reported that cross-cultural bias in neuropsychological testing and cultural factors affect individuals’ test performance. In order to conduct and interpret neuropsychological assessments for this population, it is important to use normative data and consider the impact of various factors such as acculturation, language, and generation in the U.S. Availability of normative cognitive test data for Japanese-Americans is limited. Tests with most extensive use, adaptation, validation, and norming were identified. Many clinically used measures of executive functioning (EF) have been translated into Japanese and studied in multiple clinical populations. We present information on tests in this domain given their appropriateness for use in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural evaluations.

Available studies of neuropsychological tests measuring EF that have been translated and normed in the Japanese and/or Japanese-American patient population are reported. Review of the literature was conducted by authors of Japanese descent familiar with neuropsychological assessment and Japanese and Japanese-American culture. We prioritized studies published in both English and Japanese and those that included commonly utilized tests in the U.S, allowing for maximum accessibility and utility for Western-based neuropsychologists. Additionally, inclusion priority was given to studies published in English which report the clinical diagnoses, age range, and gender characteristics of the sample population. The Wisconsin card sorting test (WCST) and Trail Making Test (TMT) were reviewed.

The WCST and the TMT, with its variant, was the most normed EF cognitive test currently available. The Keio version Japanese-Trail Making Test (J-TMT) and a simplified version of the Trail Making Test (S-TMT) has been utilized in Japan, however norms are still lacking. Of the available studies, the S-TMT and J-TMT were found to be moderately correlated with the TMT. The Keio version WCST (KWCST) (Kao et al., 2012) was correlated to education level (Abe et al., 2004), appropriately differentiating severity of social anxiety disorder (Fujii et al., 2013), patients with schizophrenia (Banno et al., 2012), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease (Yoshii et al., 2019).

Information regarding translated and normed tests are presented to assist clinical neuropsychologists provide competent services to Japanese-Americans. The J-TMT and the S-TMT may be clinically useful as an evaluation of attention for the Japanese population. The KWCST has also been found to be an appropriate tool for this population. However, publicly available norms for these assessments are still sparse, and there is very limited information about administration of these tests by English-speaking neuropsychologists with the use of interpreters. Further work is needed to increase access to and awareness of linguistically and culturally appropriate versions of clinical measures to better serve the Japanese and Japanese-American population.

Interpretation of neuropsychological (NP) tests depends on the quality of the normative standards available for the tests. Co-norming across tests is necessary when interpreting differences between scores on different tests. The relevance of specific norms for an individual examinee further depends on multiple design features of the standardization studies, including: when the studies were conducted, sampling strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, age, sex/gender, education, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and region. This paper examines the standardization studies of the most widely used NP tests, identifies their strengths and weaknesses, and makes recommendations for interpretive caveats based on these analyses.

We reviewed the standardization strategies and coded information about the sampling frames, inclusion/exclusion criteria, stratification methods, demographic characteristics, and sample sizes overall and within each stratum where relevant. These methods were applied to the WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, CVLT3, D-KEFS, Pearson Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS), Rey Complex Figure Test, WCST, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, RBANS, BVMT-R, HVLT, Halstead-Reitan (“Heaton et al”) Norms for Boston Naming, Finger Tapping, Grooved Pegboard), MOANS, and MOAANS (Boston Naming, Trail Making Test, Judgement of Line Orientation). We calculated multiple indexes for each test, including standard errors and confidence intervals for scaled scores.

Most tests used age only as a stratification factor, providing “age corrected” scores for selected age bands. The sample sizes for the age strata range from 1 to ∼200 but were usually less than 100 participants/stratum. Sex differences were rarely reported and some studies had markedly uneven distributions of sex. Education was not used as a stratification factor in any study, and few norms attempted corrections for education. The possible interactions of age and education on test scores are seldom reported and cell sizes for combinations of age and education may be too small to enable robust estimates of scores, especially at lower levels of education and older ages. The possible impact of race and ethnicity are rarely interrogated except in ACS, Heaton and MOAANS norms, which all focus on “African American” participants. Discrepancies in scores across ACS, Heaton and MOAANS suggest marked sampling differences.

Existing norms have major limitations which may impact the clinical assessment of individuals and result in inappropriate treatment recommendations as well as lead to inappropriate classification in clinical trials, which may include score “cutoffs” based on widely used normative standards. Most norms use only age as a stratification factor, despite robust impacts of education on scores. Race and ethnicity are poorly represented, fail to reflect current demographic characteristics of the United States, and existing norms present major conflicts for African American groups, with the same raw scores differing by a full standard deviation depending only on the source of normative data. Sex differences are examined infrequently and it remains unclear to what extent sex or gender differences may affect some scores. There is an urgent need for new, preferably “dynamic” normative standards, that include sampling by socially and demographically meaningful metrics, to provide greater precision in assessment of neuropsychological scores and score discrepancies, and for evaluating the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and criteria for efficacy in clinical trials that use neurocognitive endpoints.

In the aftermath and continuance of the COVID-19 pandemic, the field of neuropsychology has experienced a burgeoning literature base on remote telehealth practices. These practices include both videoconference and telephone modalities. Several studies to date have proposed evidence suggesting that inperson and remote telehealth assessments demonstrate comparable results. One of the major limitations to telehealth practices is the scarcity of measures of processing speed. A widely used measure is the Oral Trail Making Test, which has two trials (A & B). Oral Trails B is often conceptualized as a measure of set-shifting and cognitive flexibility. And validity studies support Oral Trails B having strong test-retest reliability and correlation to its written counterpart. In contrast, there is contention as to whether Oral Trails A can be conceptualized as a measure of basic attention and speed versus simple numerical automaticity. Importantly, to our knowledge, the test-retest reliability of Oral Trails A administered specifically via telephone has never been reported in a healthy sample. The following study presents test-retest reliability for the Oral Trails A and B (in a healthy control group) administered as part of a larger study investigating the effects of deep diaphragmatic breathing on cognitive functioning.

Eighty healthy young adults with elevated stress levels were recruited from a major metropolitan city at a major university. The subjects had to be between the ages of 18 to 29 and self-reported Perceived Stress Scale score >13. The subjects could not practice any form of meditation, yoga, or breathing exercise regularly. Additionally, they could not have any severe medical or psychiatric disorder, be actively suicidal; have a substance use disorder within the past year, or use of medication with a known negative impact on cognition or autonomic nervous system (ANS) arousal. Participants were randomized to a waitlist control group or an intervention group. Cognitive assessments were administered over the phone to both groups (pre and post-treatment) and self-report measures were completed online due to quarantine restrictions.

Among participants in the waitlist control group, the mean difference (MD) between time points on OTMT-A (MD= -0.17, SD= 1.69) was small and not significant (p>0.05). The mean difference for OTMT-B (MD= -13.06, SD=26.99) was large and significant (p=0.01). Bivariate Pearson correlations were computed revealing a significant moderate strength relationship between OTMT-A performance across time points (r=0.6, p<0.001). In contrast, performance on OTMT-B across time points revealed a nonsignificant, weak relationship (r=0.2, p=1.94).

These results do not support literature demonstrating strong test-retest reliability for OTMT-B. Furthermore, this is the first study establishing test-retest reliability for the OTMT-A as administered via a novel telephonic modality. Given the novel and non-standardized method of administration, the data should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, given the weak relationship in OTMT-B performance and the only moderate relationship of OTMT-A performance across time points, the results suggest that the OTMT may not be highly reliable as administered via a telephonic modality.

To assess whether different compact disk recording protocols, used to prepare speech test material, affect the reliability and comparability of speech audiometry testing.

We conducted acoustic analysis of compact disks used in clinical practice, to determine whether speech material had been recorded using similar procedures. To assess the impact of different recording procedures on speech test outcomes, normal hearing subjects were tested using differently prepared compact disks, and their psychometric curves compared.

Acoustic analysis revealed that speech material had been recorded using different protocols. The major difference was the gain between the levels at which the speech material and the calibration signal had been recorded. Although correct calibration of the audiometer was performed for each compact disk before testing, speech recognition thresholds and maximum intelligibility thresholds differed significantly between compact disks (p < 0.05), and were influenced by the gain between the recording level of the speech material and the calibration signal.

To ensure the reliability and comparability of speech test outcomes obtained using different compact disks, it is recommended to check for possible differences in the recording gains used to prepare the compact disks, and then to compensate for any differences before testing.