Brian L Brooks1,2,3, James A Holdnack4, Grant L Iverson5,6,7,8. 1. Neurosciences Program (Brain Injury and Rehabilitation), Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Departments of Paediatrics, Clinical Neurosciences, and Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Pearson Clinical Assessment, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 6. Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 7. MassGeneral Hospital for Children Sport Concussion Program, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Home Base, A Red Sox Foundation and Massachusetts General Hospital Program, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The rate at which people obtain reliably improved or declined cognitive test scores when retested, in the absence of a change in clinical condition, is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to illustrate the prevalence of statistically reliable change scores on memory test batteries in healthy adults and older adults. METHOD: Participants included three adult and older adult test-retest samples from memory test batteries. Reliable change scores (reliable change index with 90% confidence interval and practice effects) were calculated for the indexes and subtests of each battery. Multivariate analyses involved calculating the frequencies of healthy people obtaining one or more reliably declined or one or more reliably improved scores when considering all change scores simultaneously within each battery. RESULTS: Across all batteries, having one or more reliably changed index or subtest score on retest was common. With most batteries, having two or more reliably changed scores was uncommon. Those with higher intellectual abilities were more likely to have a change on retest; however, no significant differences in base rates were found based on education level, sex, or ethnic minority status. Those older adults who did not have any low memory scores were more likely to improve than decline on retest. CONCLUSIONS: Having a single reliably changed score on retest is common when interpreting a battery of memory measures. This has implications for determining cognitive decline and cognitive recovery, suggesting that multivariate interpretation is necessary.
OBJECTIVE: The rate at which people obtain reliably improved or declined cognitive test scores when retested, in the absence of a change in clinical condition, is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to illustrate the prevalence of statistically reliable change scores on memory test batteries in healthy adults and older adults. METHOD:Participants included three adult and older adult test-retest samples from memory test batteries. Reliable change scores (reliable change index with 90% confidence interval and practice effects) were calculated for the indexes and subtests of each battery. Multivariate analyses involved calculating the frequencies of healthy people obtaining one or more reliably declined or one or more reliably improved scores when considering all change scores simultaneously within each battery. RESULTS: Across all batteries, having one or more reliably changed index or subtest score on retest was common. With most batteries, having two or more reliably changed scores was uncommon. Those with higher intellectual abilities were more likely to have a change on retest; however, no significant differences in base rates were found based on education level, sex, or ethnic minority status. Those older adults who did not have any low memory scores were more likely to improve than decline on retest. CONCLUSIONS: Having a single reliably changed score on retest is common when interpreting a battery of memory measures. This has implications for determining cognitive decline and cognitive recovery, suggesting that multivariate interpretation is necessary.
Authors: Steven Paul Woods; Meredith Childers; Ronald J Ellis; Stephanie Guaman; Igor Grant; Robert K Heaton Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Mary Ganguli; Beth E Snitz; Judith A Saxton; Chung-Chou H Chang; Ching-Wen Lee; Joni Vander Bilt; Tiffany F Hughes; David A Loewenstein; Frederick W Unverzagt; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-06
Authors: Breton M Asken; Russell M Bauer; Steven T DeKosky; Zachary M Houck; Charles C Moreno; Michael S Jaffee; Arthur G Weber; James R Clugston Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Junxin Li; Yu-Ping Chang; Barbara Riegel; Brendan T Keenan; Miranda Varrasse; Allan I Pack; Nalaka S Gooneratne Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Molly B D Prigge; Erin D Bigler; Nicholas Lange; Jubel Morgan; Alyson Froehlich; Abigail Freeman; Kristina Kellett; Karen L Kane; Carolyn K King; June Taylor; Douglas C Dean; Jace B King; Jeff S Anderson; Brandon A Zielinski; Andrew L Alexander; Janet E Lainhart Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2021-10-22