PURPOSE: To determine whether the AREDS Telephone Battery can be substituted for the In-Clinic Cognitive Function Battery to assess cognitive function, so that participants could still provide follow-up information without having to come to the clinic. METHODS: Correlation analysis was performed on scores of the following in-clinic and telephone administrations: 1) Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), conducted in person vs. Telephone Interview Cognitive Status (TICS-M); 2) Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III), Logical Memory I and II; 3) Digits Backwards (a sub-test of the WMS-R); 4) Verbal Fluency; and 5) Letter Fluency (F,A,S). RESULTS: A total of 1,738 AREDS participants completed an In-Clinic Battery and a Telephone Battery within twelve months. Significant positive correlations were found for all tests, ranging from rho = 0.89 between the 3MS and TICS-M scores (95% CI; 0.88 - 0.90), to rho = 0.71 for Letter Fluency (95% CI; 0.68 - 0.74). CONCLUSION: The linear relationships between the In-Clinic Battery and Telephone Battery scores support the hypothesis that the Telephone Battery is an appropriate substitute for participants who are unable to complete an in-clinic assessment of cognitive function.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the AREDS Telephone Battery can be substituted for the In-Clinic Cognitive Function Battery to assess cognitive function, so that participants could still provide follow-up information without having to come to the clinic. METHODS: Correlation analysis was performed on scores of the following in-clinic and telephone administrations: 1) Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS), conducted in person vs. Telephone Interview Cognitive Status (TICS-M); 2) Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III), Logical Memory I and II; 3) Digits Backwards (a sub-test of the WMS-R); 4) Verbal Fluency; and 5) Letter Fluency (F,A,S). RESULTS: A total of 1,738 AREDS participants completed an In-Clinic Battery and a Telephone Battery within twelve months. Significant positive correlations were found for all tests, ranging from rho = 0.89 between the 3MS and TICS-M scores (95% CI; 0.88 - 0.90), to rho = 0.71 for Letter Fluency (95% CI; 0.68 - 0.74). CONCLUSION: The linear relationships between the In-Clinic Battery and Telephone Battery scores support the hypothesis that the Telephone Battery is an appropriate substitute for participants who are unable to complete an in-clinic assessment of cognitive function.
Authors: K H Masaki; K G Losonczy; G Izmirlian; D J Foley; G W Ross; H Petrovitch; R Havlik; L R White Journal: Neurology Date: 2000-03-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Martha Clare Morris; Denis A Evans; Julia L Bienias; Christine C Tangney; David A Bennett; Neelum Aggarwal; Robert S Wilson; Paul A Scherr Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-06-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Stephen R Rapp; Jeff A Katula; Lee Ann Andrews; Deborah Felton; Sarah A Gaussoin; Dale Dagenbach; Claudine Legault; Janine M Jennings; Kaycee M Sink Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Janice C Marceaux; Michelle A Prosje; Leslie A McClure; Bhumika Kana; Michael Crowe; Brett Kissela; Jennifer Manly; George Howard; Joyce W Tam; Frederick W Unverzagt; Virginia G Wadley Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Melinda C Power; Susan Korrick; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Linda H Nie; Francine Grodstein; Howard Hu; Jennifer Weuve; Joel Schwartz; Marc G Weisskopf Journal: Environ Res Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Paul K Crane; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Laura E Gibbons; Dan M Mungas; Sebastien Haneuse; Eric B Larson; Lewis Kuller; Kathleen Hall; Gerald van Belle Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Lydia Bunker; Tammy T Hshieh; Bonnie Wong; Eva M Schmitt; Thomas Travison; Jacqueline Yee; Kerry Palihnich; Eran Metzger; Tamara G Fong; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Stephen R Rapp; Claudine Legault; Mark A Espeland; Susan M Resnick; Patricia E Hogan; Laura H Coker; Maggie Dailey; Sally A Shumaker Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 5.562