Gali H Weissberger1, David P Salmon2, Mark W Bondi3, Tamar H Gollan4. 1. San Diego State University. 2. Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego. 3. VA San Diego Healthcare System. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate which neuropsychological tests predict eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals. Although our approach was exploratory, we predicted that tests that underestimate cognitive ability in healthy aging Hispanics might not be sensitive to future cognitive decline in this cultural group. METHOD: We compared first-year data of 22 older adults (11 Hispanic) who were diagnosed as cognitively normal but eventually developed AD (decliners), to 60 age- and education-matched controls (27 Hispanic) who remained cognitively normal. To identify tests that may be culturally biased in our sample, we compared Hispanic with non-Hispanic controls on all tests and asked which tests were sensitive to future decline in each cultural group. RESULTS: Compared to age-, education-, and gender-matched non-Hispanic controls, Hispanic controls obtained lower scores on tests of language, executive function, and some measures of global cognition. Consistent with our predictions, some tests identified non-Hispanic, but not Hispanic, decliners (vocabulary, semantic fluency). Contrary to our predictions, a number of tests on which Hispanics obtained lower scores than non-Hispanics nevertheless predicted eventual progression to AD in both cultural groups (e.g., Boston Naming Test [BNT], Trails A and B). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-cultural variation in test sensitivity to decline may reflect greater resistance of medium difficulty items to decline and bilingual advantages that initially protect Hispanics against some aspects of cognitive decline commonly observed in non-Hispanics with preclinical AD. These findings highlight a need for further consideration of cross-cultural differences in neuropsychological test performance and development of culturally unbiased measures.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate which neuropsychological tests predict eventual progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD) in both Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals. Although our approach was exploratory, we predicted that tests that underestimate cognitive ability in healthy aging Hispanics might not be sensitive to future cognitive decline in this cultural group. METHOD: We compared first-year data of 22 older adults (11 Hispanic) who were diagnosed as cognitively normal but eventually developed AD (decliners), to 60 age- and education-matched controls (27 Hispanic) who remained cognitively normal. To identify tests that may be culturally biased in our sample, we compared Hispanic with non-Hispanic controls on all tests and asked which tests were sensitive to future decline in each cultural group. RESULTS: Compared to age-, education-, and gender-matched non-Hispanic controls, Hispanic controls obtained lower scores on tests of language, executive function, and some measures of global cognition. Consistent with our predictions, some tests identified non-Hispanic, but not Hispanic, decliners (vocabulary, semantic fluency). Contrary to our predictions, a number of tests on which Hispanics obtained lower scores than non-Hispanics nevertheless predicted eventual progression to AD in both cultural groups (e.g., Boston Naming Test [BNT], Trails A and B). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-cultural variation in test sensitivity to decline may reflect greater resistance of medium difficulty items to decline and bilingual advantages that initially protect Hispanics against some aspects of cognitive decline commonly observed in non-Hispanics with preclinical AD. These findings highlight a need for further consideration of cross-cultural differences in neuropsychological test performance and development of culturally unbiased measures.
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Charles DeCarli; Dan Mungas; Helena I Chui; Roger Higdon; Jessica Nuñez; Henrique Fernandez; Mirna Negrón; Jennifer Manly; Steven Ferris; Angelica Perez; Migdalia Torres; Douglas Ewbank; Guila Glosser; Gerald van Belle Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-05
Authors: Kelly L Lange; Mark W Bondi; David P Salmon; Douglas Galasko; Dean C Delis; Ronald G Thomas; Leon J Thal Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: R L Sacco; B Boden-Albala; R Gan; X Chen; D E Kargman; S Shea; M C Paik; W A Hauser Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 1998-02-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Tedd Judd; Darla Capetillo; José Carrión-Baralt; Leonardo M Mármol; Liza San Miguel-Montes; M Gina Navarrete; Antonio E Puente; Heather Rodas Romero; Jacqueline Valdés Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Gali H Weissberger; Tamar H Gollan; Mark W Bondi; Daniel A Nation; Lawrence A Hansen; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Guerry M Peavy; Cecily W Jenkins; Emily A Little; Christina Gigliotti; Amanda Calcetas; Steven D Edland; James B Brewer; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Priscilla M Vásquez; Wassim Tarraf; Adit Doza; Maria J Marquine; Krista M Perreira; Neil Schneiderman; Donglin Zeng; Jianwen Cai; Carmen R Isasi; Martha L Daviglus; Hector M González Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2019-10-04