BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline in the elderly is a subject of intense focus. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding definition of significant decline in connection with repeated testing and the interpretation of cognitive tests results must take into account the practice effect and variability in test performance. The aim of this study was to collect cognitive test results with repeated testing in an elderly healthy population. METHODS: 161 healthy controls ≥60 years were included. Cognitive testing was performed upon entry into the study, at 1 week and 3 months. Practice effect was evaluated on 7 neuropsychological measures and reference values of clinically important changes were calculated according to z-scores above 1.96. RESULTS: Test scores improved significantly (p<0.05) in 2 of 7 measures between baseline and 2nd test and in 6 of 7 measures between baseline and 3rd test session. No significant correlation was found between magnitude of practice effect and age or educational status. CONCLUSION: Practice effect and variability in cognitive testing in the elderly are important to consider when evaluating changes in cognitive performance over a short period of time.
BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline in the elderly is a subject of intense focus. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding definition of significant decline in connection with repeated testing and the interpretation of cognitive tests results must take into account the practice effect and variability in test performance. The aim of this study was to collect cognitive test results with repeated testing in an elderly healthy population. METHODS: 161 healthy controls ≥60 years were included. Cognitive testing was performed upon entry into the study, at 1 week and 3 months. Practice effect was evaluated on 7 neuropsychological measures and reference values of clinically important changes were calculated according to z-scores above 1.96. RESULTS: Test scores improved significantly (p<0.05) in 2 of 7 measures between baseline and 2nd test and in 6 of 7 measures between baseline and 3rd test session. No significant correlation was found between magnitude of practice effect and age or educational status. CONCLUSION: Practice effect and variability in cognitive testing in the elderly are important to consider when evaluating changes in cognitive performance over a short period of time.
Authors: Lori A Daiello; Annie M Racine; Ray Yun Gou; Edward R Marcantonio; Zhongcong Xie; Lisa J Kunze; Kamen V Vlassakov; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones; David Alsop; Thomas Travison; Steven Arnold; Zara Cooper; Bradford Dickerson; Tamara Fong; Eran Metzger; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Eva M Schmitt; Mouhsin Shafi; Michele Cavallari; Weiying Dai; Simon T Dillon; Janet McElhaney; Charles Guttmann; Tammy Hshieh; George Kuchel; Towia Libermann; Long Ngo; Daniel Press; Jane Saczynski; Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn; Margaret O'Connor; Eyal Kimchi; Jason Strauss; Bonnie Wong; Michael Belkin; Douglas Ayres; Mark Callery; Frank Pomposelli; John Wright; Marc Schermerhorn; Tatiana Abrantes; Asha Albuquerque; Sylvie Bertrand; Amanda Brown; Amy Callahan; Madeline D'Aquila; Sarah Dowal; Meaghan Fox; Jacqueline Gallagher; Rebecca Anna Gersten; Ariel Hodara; Ben Helfand; Jennifer Inloes; Jennifer Kettell; Aleksandra Kuczmarska; Jacqueline Nee; Emese Nemeth; Lisa Ochsner; Kerry Palihnich; Katelyn Parisi; Margaret Puelle; Sarah Rastegar; Margaret Vella; Guoquan Xu; Margaret Bryan; Jamey Guess; Dee Enghorn; Alden Gross; Yun Gou; Daniel Habtemariam; Ilean Isaza; Cyrus Kosar; Christopher Rockett; Douglas Tommet; Ted Gruen; Meg Ross; Katherine Tasker; James Gee; Ann Kolanowski; Margaret Pisani; Sophia de Rooij; Selwyn Rogers; Stephanie Studenski; Yaakov Stern; Anthony Whittemore; Gary Gottlieb; John Orav; Reisa Sperling Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Frederik Holmgaard; Anne G Vedel; Lars S Rasmussen; Olaf B Paulson; Jens C Nilsson; Hanne B Ravn Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Tonita E Wroolie; Heather A Kenna; Katherine E Williams; Natalie L Rasgon Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Lin Xiao; Samantha M W Wood; Natalie L Denburg; Georgina L Moreno; Michael Hernandez; Antoine Bechara Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 2.475