Lydia Bunker1, Tammy T Hshieh2,3, Bonnie Wong4,5, Eva M Schmitt3, Thomas Travison3, Jacqueline Yee3, Kerry Palihnich6, Eran Metzger3,5, Tamara G Fong3,4, Sharon K Inouye3,6. 1. New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA. 2. Division of Aging, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Aging Brain Center, Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, MA, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychological test batteries are administered in person to assess cognitive function in both clinical and research settings. However, in-person administration holds a number of logistical challenges that makes it difficult to use in large or remote populations or for multiple serial assessments over time. The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine whether a telephone-administered neuropsychological test battery correlated well with in-person testing. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients without dementia, over 70 years old, and part of a cohort of patients in a prospective cohort study examining cognitive outcomes following elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Five well-validated neuropsychological tests were administered by telephone to each participant by a trained interviewer within 2-4 weeks of the most recent in-person interview. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Digit Span, Category Fluency, Phonemic Fluency, and Boston Naming Test. A General Cognitive Performance composite score was calculated from individual subtest scores as a Z-score. RESULTS: Mean age was 74.9 years (SD = 4.1), 66% female, and 4% non-White. Mean and interquartile distributions of telephone scores were similar to in-person scores. Correlation analysis of test scores revealed significant correlations between telephone and in-person results for each individual subtest, as well as for the overall composite score. A Bland-Altman plot revealed no bias or trends in scoring for either test administration type. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, the telephone version of a neuropsychological test battery correlated well with the in-person version and may provide a feasible supplement in clinical and research applications.
OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychological test batteries are administered in person to assess cognitive function in both clinical and research settings. However, in-person administration holds a number of logistical challenges that makes it difficult to use in large or remote populations or for multiple serial assessments over time. The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine whether a telephone-administered neuropsychological test battery correlated well with in-person testing. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients without dementia, over 70 years old, and part of a cohort of patients in a prospective cohort study examining cognitive outcomes following elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Five well-validated neuropsychological tests were administered by telephone to each participant by a trained interviewer within 2-4 weeks of the most recent in-person interview. Tests included the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised, Digit Span, Category Fluency, Phonemic Fluency, and Boston Naming Test. A General Cognitive Performance composite score was calculated from individual subtest scores as a Z-score. RESULTS: Mean age was 74.9 years (SD = 4.1), 66% female, and 4% non-White. Mean and interquartile distributions of telephone scores were similar to in-person scores. Correlation analysis of test scores revealed significant correlations between telephone and in-person results for each individual subtest, as well as for the overall composite score. A Bland-Altman plot revealed no bias or trends in scoring for either test administration type. CONCLUSIONS: In this descriptive study, the telephone version of a neuropsychological test battery correlated well with the in-person version and may provide a feasible supplement in clinical and research applications.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Eva M Schmitt; Edward R Marcantonio; David C Alsop; Richard N Jones; Selwyn O Rogers; Tamara G Fong; Eran Metzger; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Richard N Jones; James L Rudolph; Sharon K Inouye; Frances M Yang; Tamara G Fong; William P Milberg; Douglas Tommet; Eran D Metzger; L Adrienne Cupples; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Teresa C Castanho; Liliana Amorim; Joseph Zihl; Joana A Palha; Nuno Sousa; Nadine C Santos Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 5.750
Authors: Maiya R Geddes; Megan E O'Connell; John D Fisk; Serge Gauthier; Richard Camicioli; Zahinoor Ismail Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2020-09-22
Authors: Madisen T Russell; Kensie M Funsch; Cassi R Springfield; Robert A Ackerman; Colin A Depp; Philip D Harvey; Raeanne C Moore; Amy E Pinkham Journal: Schizophr Res Cogn Date: 2021-12-02
Authors: Justin Bushnell; Diana Svaldi; Matthew R Ayers; Sujuan Gao; Frederick Unverzagt; John Del Gaizo; Virginia G Wadley; Richard Kennedy; Joaquín Goñi; David Glenn Clark Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Anne R Carlew; Hudaisa Fatima; Julia R Livingstone; Caitlin Reese; Laura Lacritz; Cody Pendergrass; Kenneth Chase Bailey; Chase Presley; Ben Mokhtari; Colin Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Franchesca Arias; Diomaris E Safi; Michelle Miranda; Carmen I Carrión; Ana L Diaz Santos; Victoria Armendariz; Irene E Jose; Kevin D Vuong; Paola Suarez; Adriana M Strutt Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.813