OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) for identifying participants appropriate for trials of physical activity and cognitive training interventions. METHODS: Volunteers (N=343), ages 70-85 years, who were being recruited for a pilot clinical trial on approaches to prevent cognitive decline, were administered TICS and required to score ≥ 31 prior to an invitation to attend clinic-based assessments. The frequencies of contraindications for physical activity and cognitive training interventions were tallied for individuals grouped by TICS scores. Relationships between TICS scores and other measures of cognitive function were described by scatterplots and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria to identify candidates who were appropriate candidates for the trial interventions excluded 51.7% of the volunteers with TICS<31. TICS scores above this range were not strongly related to cognition or attendance at screening visits, however overall enrollment yields were approximately half for participants with TICS=31 versus TICS=41, and increased in a graded fashion throughout the range of scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of TICS to define eligibility criteria in trials of physical activity and cognitive training interventions may not be worthwhile in that many individuals with low scores would already be eliminated by intervention-specific criteria and the relationship of TICS with clinic-based tests of cognitive function among appropriate candidates for these interventions may be weak. TICS may be most useful in these trials to identify candidates for oversampling in order to obtain a balanced cohort of participants at risk for cognitive decline.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the performance of the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) for identifying participants appropriate for trials of physical activity and cognitive training interventions. METHODS: Volunteers (N=343), ages 70-85 years, who were being recruited for a pilot clinical trial on approaches to prevent cognitive decline, were administered TICS and required to score ≥ 31 prior to an invitation to attend clinic-based assessments. The frequencies of contraindications for physical activity and cognitive training interventions were tallied for individuals grouped by TICS scores. Relationships between TICS scores and other measures of cognitive function were described by scatterplots and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria to identify candidates who were appropriate candidates for the trial interventions excluded 51.7% of the volunteers with TICS<31. TICS scores above this range were not strongly related to cognition or attendance at screening visits, however overall enrollment yields were approximately half for participants with TICS=31 versus TICS=41, and increased in a graded fashion throughout the range of scores. CONCLUSIONS: Use of TICS to define eligibility criteria in trials of physical activity and cognitive training interventions may not be worthwhile in that many individuals with low scores would already be eliminated by intervention-specific criteria and the relationship of TICS with clinic-based tests of cognitive function among appropriate candidates for these interventions may be weak. TICS may be most useful in these trials to identify candidates for oversampling in order to obtain a balanced cohort of participants at risk for cognitive decline.
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Stephen R Rapp; Julia Robertson; Iris Granek; Carol Murphy; Marilyn Albert; Tamsen Bassford Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2006 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Tarja Järvenpää; Juha O Rinne; Ismo Räihä; Markku Koskenvuo; Minna Löppönen; Susanna Hinkka; Jaakko Kaprio Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Luigi Ferrucci; Jack M Guralnik; Stephanie Studenski; Linda P Fried; Gordon B Cutler; Jeremy D Walston Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jacqueline M Leung; Laura P Sands; Eunjung Lim; Tiffany L Tsai; Sakura Kinjo Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Stephen R Rapp; George A Bray; Denise K Houston; Karen C Johnson; Abbas E Kitabchi; Andrea L Hergenroeder; Jeff Williamson; John M Jakicic; Brent van Dorsten; Stephen B Kritchevsky Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Jeffrey A Katula; Julia Rushing; Arthur F Kramer; Janine M Jennings; Kaycee M Sink; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Kieran F Reid; Cynthia M Castro; Timothy Church; Diana R Kerwin; Jeff D Williamson; Richard A Marottoli; Scott Rushing; Michael Marsiske; Stephen R Rapp Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Jonathan H Burdette; Paul J Laurienti; Mark A Espeland; Ashley Morgan; Qawi Telesford; Crystal D Vechlekar; Satoru Hayasaka; Janine M Jennings; Jeffrey A Katula; Robert A Kraft; W Jack Rejeski Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 5.750
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
Authors: Claudine Legault; Janine M Jennings; Jeffrey A Katula; Dale Dagenbach; Sarah A Gaussoin; Kaycee M Sink; Stephen R Rapp; W Jack Rejeski; Sally A Shumaker; Mark A Espeland Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Patrick O Monahan; Catherine A Alder; Babar A Khan; Timothy Stump; Malaz A Boustani Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 4.458