Jean McFarlane1, John Welch, Jacqui Rodgers. 1. Acute Division, Rehabilation and Assessment Directorate, Greater Glasgow and Clyde Healthboard, UK. jean.mcfarlane@northglasgow.scot.nhs.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the robustness of the National Adult Reading Test (NART), Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), Cambridge Contextual Reading Test (CCRT), Spot the Word (STW), and a demographic regression equation in estimating premorbid ability in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: A cross-sectional multiple measures design. METHOD: Sixty-six probable AD participants were classified into stages of severity according to their Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (minimal 24 to 28; mild 14 to 23). Their scores on the NART, WTAR, CCRT, STW and a demographic equation were compared with 32 healthy age matched controls. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were found for the tests of reading ability (NART, WTAR and CCRT). The mild group made significantly more errors than the control and minimal groups. For the mild group, there was an advantage of putting the NART words into context (CCRT), but this group still made significantly more errors than the control and minimal groups. The NART was compared with the demographic estimate and there was a significant difference for the mild group with the demographic estimate providing a higher estimate. This was not the case for the control or minimal groups. There was no significant difference between the groups on the lexical decision task (STW). CONCLUSION: Reading of irregular words is compromised in AD for those with a MMSE score in the range of 14 to 23. A lexical decision task may provide a more accurate estimate of premorbid intelligence in those with mild AD. Further research is needed to provide evidence of STW's correlation with current ability.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the robustness of the National Adult Reading Test (NART), Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), Cambridge Contextual Reading Test (CCRT), Spot the Word (STW), and a demographic regression equation in estimating premorbid ability in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: A cross-sectional multiple measures design. METHOD: Sixty-six probable ADparticipants were classified into stages of severity according to their Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (minimal 24 to 28; mild 14 to 23). Their scores on the NART, WTAR, CCRT, STW and a demographic equation were compared with 32 healthy age matched controls. RESULTS: Significant between-group differences were found for the tests of reading ability (NART, WTAR and CCRT). The mild group made significantly more errors than the control and minimal groups. For the mild group, there was an advantage of putting the NART words into context (CCRT), but this group still made significantly more errors than the control and minimal groups. The NART was compared with the demographic estimate and there was a significant difference for the mild group with the demographic estimate providing a higher estimate. This was not the case for the control or minimal groups. There was no significant difference between the groups on the lexical decision task (STW). CONCLUSION: Reading of irregular words is compromised in AD for those with a MMSE score in the range of 14 to 23. A lexical decision task may provide a more accurate estimate of premorbid intelligence in those with mild AD. Further research is needed to provide evidence of STW's correlation with current ability.
Authors: Alexander L Chin; Selam Negash; Sharon Xie; Steven E Arnold; Roy Hamilton Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Jane S Saczynski; Sharon K Inouye; Cyrus Kosar; Doug Tommet; Edward R Marcantonio; Tamara Fong; Tammy Hshieh; Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn; Eran D Metzger; Eva Schmitt; David C Alsop; Richard N Jones Journal: Lancet Psychiatry Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 27.083
Authors: Julie M Stamm; Alexandra P Bourlas; Christine M Baugh; Nathan G Fritts; Daniel H Daneshvar; Brett M Martin; Michael D McClean; Yorghos Tripodis; Robert A Stern Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sevdenur Cizginer; Edward Marcantonio; Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Mouhsin Shafi; Eva M Schmitt; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Justin J F O'Rourke; William H Adams; Kevin Duff; Joanne Byars; Peg Nopoulos; Jane S Paulsen; Leigh J Beglinger Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2010-12-08 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Shana D Stites; Jason Karlawish; Kristin Harkins; Jonathan D Rubright; David Wolk Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Michael G Harrington; Jiarong Chiang; Janice M Pogoda; Megan Gomez; Kris Thomas; Sarah Deboard Marion; Karen J Miller; Prabha Siddarth; Xinyao Yi; Feimeng Zhou; Sherri Lee; Xianghong Arakaki; Robert P Cowan; Thao Tran; Cherise Charleswell; Brian D Ross; Alfred N Fonteh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 3.240