BACKGROUND: Administration of cognitive test batteries by telephone has been shown to be a valid and cost-effective means of assessing cognition, but it remains relatively uncommon in epidemiological research. OBJECTIVES: To develop composite cognitive measures and assess how much of the variability in their scores is associated with mode of test administration (ie, in person or by telephone). DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease Family Study conducted at 18 centers across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1584 persons, 368 with dementia, from 646 families. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on composite measures of memory and cognitive function derived from a battery of 7 performance tests administered in person (69%) or by telephone (31%) by examiners who underwent a structured performance-based training program with annual recertification. RESULTS: Based in part on the results of a factor analysis of the 7 tests, we developed summary measures of working memory, declarative memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, and global cognition. In linear regression analyses, mode of test administration accounted for less than 2% of the variance in the measures. In mixed-effects models, variability in cognitive scores due to center was small relative to variability due to differences between individuals and families. CONCLUSIONS: In epidemiologic research on aging and Alzheimer disease, assessment of cognition by telephone has little effect on performance and provides operational flexibility and a means of reducing both costs and missing data.
BACKGROUND: Administration of cognitive test batteries by telephone has been shown to be a valid and cost-effective means of assessing cognition, but it remains relatively uncommon in epidemiological research. OBJECTIVES: To develop composite cognitive measures and assess how much of the variability in their scores is associated with mode of test administration (ie, in person or by telephone). DESIGN: Cross-sectional cohort study. SETTING: Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease Family Study conducted at 18 centers across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1584 persons, 368 with dementia, from 646 families. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores on composite measures of memory and cognitive function derived from a battery of 7 performance tests administered in person (69%) or by telephone (31%) by examiners who underwent a structured performance-based training program with annual recertification. RESULTS: Based in part on the results of a factor analysis of the 7 tests, we developed summary measures of working memory, declarative memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, and global cognition. In linear regression analyses, mode of test administration accounted for less than 2% of the variance in the measures. In mixed-effects models, variability in cognitive scores due to center was small relative to variability due to differences between individuals and families. CONCLUSIONS: In epidemiologic research on aging and Alzheimer disease, assessment of cognition by telephone has little effect on performance and provides operational flexibility and a means of reducing both costs and missing data.
Authors: Jerrold Hill; Janine M McVay; Adrian Walter-Ginzburg; Charles S Mills; Janice Lewis; Barbara E Lewis; Howard Fillit Journal: Dis Manag Date: 2005-08
Authors: John C Morris; Sandra Weintraub; Helena C Chui; Jeffrey Cummings; Charles Decarli; Steven Ferris; Norman L Foster; Douglas Galasko; Neill Graff-Radford; Elaine R Peskind; Duane Beekly; Erin M Ramos; Walter A Kukull Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Lori A Newkirk; Janise M Kim; Jean M Thompson; Jared R Tinklenberg; Jerome A Yesavage; Joy L Taylor Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Robert S Wilson; Laurel A Beckett; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; Julie Bach; Denis A Evans; David A Bennett Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2002-06
Authors: S Barral; T Bird; A Goate; M R Farlow; R Diaz-Arrastia; D A Bennett; N Graff-Radford; B F Boeve; R A Sweet; Y Stern; R S Wilson; T Foroud; J Ott; R Mayeux Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Andrzej T Galecki; Kenneth M Langa; Frederick W Unverzagt; Mohammed U Kabeto; Bruno Giordani; Mary Cushman; Leslie A McClure; Monika M Safford; Virginia G Wadley Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Andrzej T Galecki; Kenneth M Langa; Frederick W Unverzagt; Mohammed U Kabeto; Bruno Giordani; Virginia G Wadley Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David A Bennett; Julie A Schneider; Aron S Buchman; Lisa L Barnes; Patricia A Boyle; Robert S Wilson Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.498
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