AIM: To review the use of the Months Backwards Test (MBT) in clinical and research contexts. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reports relating to the MBT based upon a search of PsychINFO and MEDLINE between January 1980 and December 2014. Only reports that specifically described findings pertaining to the MBT were included. Findings were considered in terms of rating procedures, testing performance, psychometric properties, neuropsychological studies and use in clinical populations. RESULTS: We identified 22 data reports. The MBT is administered and rated in a variety of ways with very little consistency across studies. It has been used to assess various cognitive functions including focused and sustained attention as well as central processing speed. Performance can be assessed in terms of the ability to accurately complete the test without errors ("MB accuracy"), and time taken to complete the test ("MB duration"). Completion time in cognitively intact subjects is usually < 20 s with upper limits of 60-90 s typically applied in studies. The majority of cognitively intact adults can complete the test without error such that any errors of omission are strongly suggestive of cognitive dysfunction. Coverage of clinical populations, including those with significant cognitive difficulties is high with the majority of subjects able to engage with MBT procedures. Performance correlates highly with other cognitive tests, especially of attention, including the digit span backwards, trailmaking test B, serial threes and sevens, tests of simple and complex choice reaction time, delayed story recall and standardized list learning measures. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability are high (both > 0.90). Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies comparing the months forward test and MBT indicate greater involvement of more complex networks (bilateral middle and inferior frontal gyri, the posterior parietal cortex and the left anterior cingulate gyrus) for backwards cognitive processing. The MBT has been usefully applied to the study of a variety of clinical presentations, for both cognitive and functional assessment. In addition to the assessment of major neuropsychiatric conditions such as delirium, dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment, the MBT has been used in the assessment of concussion, profiling of neurocognitive impairments in organic brain disorders and Parkinson's disease, prediction of delirium risk in surgical patients and medication compliance in diabetes. The reported sensitivity for acute neurocognitive disturbance/delirium in hospitalised patients is estimated at 83%-93%. Repeated testing can be used to identify deteriorating cognitive function over time. CONCLUSION: The MBT is a simple, versatile tool that is sensitive to significant cognitive impairment. Performance can be assessed according to accuracy and speed of performance. However, greater consistency in administration and rating is needed. We suggest two approaches to assessing performance - a simple (pass/fail) method as well as a ten point scale for rating test performance (467).
AIM: To review the use of the Months Backwards Test (MBT) in clinical and research contexts. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reports relating to the MBT based upon a search of PsychINFO and MEDLINE between January 1980 and December 2014. Only reports that specifically described findings pertaining to the MBT were included. Findings were considered in terms of rating procedures, testing performance, psychometric properties, neuropsychological studies and use in clinical populations. RESULTS: We identified 22 data reports. The MBT is administered and rated in a variety of ways with very little consistency across studies. It has been used to assess various cognitive functions including focused and sustained attention as well as central processing speed. Performance can be assessed in terms of the ability to accurately complete the test without errors ("MB accuracy"), and time taken to complete the test ("MB duration"). Completion time in cognitively intact subjects is usually < 20 s with upper limits of 60-90 s typically applied in studies. The majority of cognitively intact adults can complete the test without error such that any errors of omission are strongly suggestive of cognitive dysfunction. Coverage of clinical populations, including those with significant cognitive difficulties is high with the majority of subjects able to engage with MBT procedures. Performance correlates highly with other cognitive tests, especially of attention, including the digit span backwards, trailmaking test B, serial threes and sevens, tests of simple and complex choice reaction time, delayed story recall and standardized list learning measures. Test-retest and inter-rater reliability are high (both > 0.90). Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies comparing the months forward test and MBT indicate greater involvement of more complex networks (bilateral middle and inferior frontal gyri, the posterior parietal cortex and the left anterior cingulate gyrus) for backwards cognitive processing. The MBT has been usefully applied to the study of a variety of clinical presentations, for both cognitive and functional assessment. In addition to the assessment of major neuropsychiatric conditions such as delirium, dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment, the MBT has been used in the assessment of concussion, profiling of neurocognitive impairments in organic brain disorders and Parkinson's disease, prediction of delirium risk in surgical patients and medication compliance in diabetes. The reported sensitivity for acute neurocognitive disturbance/delirium in hospitalised patients is estimated at 83%-93%. Repeated testing can be used to identify deteriorating cognitive function over time. CONCLUSION: The MBT is a simple, versatile tool that is sensitive to significant cognitive impairment. Performance can be assessed according to accuracy and speed of performance. However, greater consistency in administration and rating is needed. We suggest two approaches to assessing performance - a simple (pass/fail) method as well as a ten point scale for rating test performance (467).
Entities:
Keywords:
Assessment; Cognition; Delirium; Dementia; Months backward test
Authors: Thomas M Jinguji; Viviana Bompadre; Kimberly G Harmon; Emma K Satchell; Kaiulani Gilbert; Jennifer Wild; Janet F Eary Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Bruno Dubois; David Burn; Christopher Goetz; Dag Aarsland; Richard G Brown; Gerald A Broe; Dennis Dickson; Charles Duyckaerts; Jefferey Cummings; Serge Gauthier; Amos Korczyn; Andrew Lees; Richard Levy; Irene Litvan; Yoshikuni Mizuno; Ian G McKeith; C Warren Olanow; Werner Poewe; Cristina Sampaio; Eduardo Tolosa; Murat Emre Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: María Roca; Alice Parr; Russell Thompson; Alexandra Woolgar; Teresa Torralva; Nagui Antoun; Facundo Manes; John Duncan Journal: Brain Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Wolfgang Hasemann; Florian F Grossmann; Rahel Stadler; Roland Bingisser; Dieter Breil; Martina Hafner; Reto W Kressig; Christian H Nickel Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2017-12-30 Impact factor: 3.397
Authors: Franchesca Arias; Margaret Wiggins; Richard D Urman; Rebecca Armstrong; Kurt Pfeifer; Angela M Bader; David J Libon; Anita Chopra; Catherine C Price Journal: Perioper Care Oper Room Manag Date: 2020-01-25
Authors: Hanna B Åhman; Ylva Cedervall; Lena Kilander; Vilmantas Giedraitis; Lars Berglund; Kevin J McKee; Erik Rosendahl; Martin Ingelsson; Anna Cristina Åberg Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Hanna Bozkurt Åhman; Vilmantas Giedraitis; Ylva Cedervall; Björn Lennhed; Lars Berglund; Kevin McKee; Lena Kilander; Erik Rosendahl; Martin Ingelsson; Anna Cristina Åberg Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: David J Meagher; Henry O'Connell; Maeve Leonard; Olugbenga Williams; Fahad Awan; Chris Exton; Michael Tenorio; Margaret O'Connor; Colum P Dunne; Walter Cullen; John McFarland; Dimitrios Adamis Journal: World J Psychiatry Date: 2020-04-19
Authors: Ella W Yeung; Yan-Wing Sin; Sweetie R Lui; Toni W T Tsang; Ka-Wing Ng; Pui-Ka Ma; Simon S Yeung; Peter Y Woo; Tracy M Ma Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2018-10-04