BACKGROUND: The Clock-in-the-Box is a rapid (2-minute) cognitive screening tool. The purpose of this study was to compare the Clock-in-the-Box with the Mini-Mental State Exam and neuropsychologic tests; to determine Clock-in-the-Box score normative values by age and education group; and to determine if the Clock-in-the-Box score is associated with measures of physical function. METHODS: Community-dwelling older participants in the Boston area were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal study in which they completed a variety of cognitive and functional assessments. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n=798; mean age [± standard deviation]=78.2 [±5.5] years; 14 [±3] mean years of education) completed in-home assessments of cognition (Clock-in-the-Box and Mini-Mental State Exam), measures of independent function (Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living), and measures of physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery). The mean Mini-Mental State Exam score was 27.1 (±1.6; range 0-30 [0 worst]), and the mean Clock-in-the-Box score was 6.2 (±1.6; range 0-8 [0 worst]). Performance on the Clock-in-the-Box was correlated (Spearman) with the Mini-Mental State Exam (r=0.49, P<.001) and neuropsychologic measures (r=0.37-0.50; P<.001). Higher Clock-in-the-Box score was significantly associated with no difficulty in Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 39.6, P<.001) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 35.5, P<.001). In addition, higher Clock-in-the-Box scores were associated with higher scores on the Short Physical Performance Battery (F=5.4, P<.001). CONCLUSION: The Clock-in-the-Box is a brief cognitive screening test that is correlated with the Mini-Mental State Exam, neuropsychologic tests, and measures of independent and physical function in community-dwelling older adults. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The Clock-in-the-Box is a rapid (2-minute) cognitive screening tool. The purpose of this study was to compare the Clock-in-the-Box with the Mini-Mental State Exam and neuropsychologic tests; to determine Clock-in-the-Box score normative values by age and education group; and to determine if the Clock-in-the-Box score is associated with measures of physical function. METHODS: Community-dwelling older participants in the Boston area were recruited for a prospective, longitudinal study in which they completed a variety of cognitive and functional assessments. RESULTS: At baseline, participants (n=798; mean age [± standard deviation]=78.2 [±5.5] years; 14 [±3] mean years of education) completed in-home assessments of cognition (Clock-in-the-Box and Mini-Mental State Exam), measures of independent function (Activities of Daily Living and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living), and measures of physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery). The mean Mini-Mental State Exam score was 27.1 (±1.6; range 0-30 [0 worst]), and the mean Clock-in-the-Box score was 6.2 (±1.6; range 0-8 [0 worst]). Performance on the Clock-in-the-Box was correlated (Spearman) with the Mini-Mental State Exam (r=0.49, P<.001) and neuropsychologic measures (r=0.37-0.50; P<.001). Higher Clock-in-the-Box score was significantly associated with no difficulty in Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 39.6, P<.001) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (χ(2) = 35.5, P<.001). In addition, higher Clock-in-the-Box scores were associated with higher scores on the Short Physical Performance Battery (F=5.4, P<.001). CONCLUSION: The Clock-in-the-Box is a brief cognitive screening test that is correlated with the Mini-Mental State Exam, neuropsychologic tests, and measures of independent and physical function in community-dwelling older adults. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Patrizio Pasqualetti; Filomena Moffa; Paola Chiovenda; Giovanni A Carlesimo; Carlo Caltagirone; Paolo M Rossini Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Laura J Grande; James L Rudolph; William P Milberg; Colleen E Barber; Regina E McGlinchey Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Joshua Chodosh; Diana B Petitti; Marc Elliott; Ron D Hays; Valerie C Crooks; David B Reuben; J Galen Buckwalter; Neil Wenger Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Guusje van der Leeuw; Laura H P Eggermont; Ling Shi; William P Milberg; Alden L Gross; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Jonathan F Bean; Suzanne G Leveille Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-10-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Tammy T Hshieh; Wooram F Jung; Laura J Grande; Jiaying Chen; Richard M Stone; Robert J Soiffer; Jane A Driver; Gregory A Abel Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Alan B Frol; Aracely Vasquez; Yonatan Getahun; Maria Pacheco; David A Khan; E Sherwood Brown Journal: Allergy Asthma Proc Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.587
Authors: Deborah J Culley; Devon Flaherty; Margaret C Fahey; James L Rudolph; Houman Javedan; Chuan-Chin Huang; John Wright; Angela M Bader; Bradley T Hyman; Deborah Blacker; Gregory Crosby Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Andrew Hantel; Clark DuMontier; Oreofe O Odejide; Marlise R Luskin; Adam S Sperling; Tammy Hshieh; Richard Chen; Robert Soiffer; Jane A Driver; Gregory A Abel Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sam T Creavin; Susanna Wisniewski; Anna H Noel-Storr; Clare M Trevelyan; Thomas Hampton; Dane Rayment; Victoria M Thom; Kirsty J E Nash; Hosam Elhamoui; Rowena Milligan; Anish S Patel; Demitra V Tsivos; Tracey Wing; Emma Phillips; Sophie M Kellman; Hannah L Shackleton; Georgina F Singleton; Bethany E Neale; Martha E Watton; Sarah Cullum Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-01-13
Authors: Guusje van der Leeuw; Suzanne G Leveille; Richard N Jones; Jeffrey M Hausdorff; Robert McLean; Dan K Kiely; Margaret Gagnon; William P Milberg Journal: Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn Date: 2016-09-02
Authors: Alessandro Morandi; Jessica McCurley; Eduard E Vasilevskis; Donna M Fick; Giuseppe Bellelli; Patricia Lee; James C Jackson; Susan D Shenkin; John Schnelle; Sharon K Inouye; E Wesley Ely; Wesley E Ely; Alasdair MacLullich Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-10-05 Impact factor: 5.562