Stephen M Rao1, Genna Losinski1, Lyla Mourany1, David Schindler2, Bernadett Mamone3, Christine Reece1, Danielle Kemeny1, Sridar Narayanan4, Deborah M Miller5, Francois Bethoux5, Robert A Bermel5, Richard Rudick6, Jay Alberts2. 1. Schey Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging, Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Whippany, NJ, USA. 4. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Biogen, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive dysfunction is common in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and has important consequences for daily activities, yet, unlike motor function, is not routinely assessed in the clinic setting. We developed the Processing Speed Test (PST), a self-administered iPad®-based tool to measure MS-related deficits in processing speed. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the PST is valid for screening cognitive dysfunction by comparing it to the paper-and-pencil Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). METHODS: We assessed PST test-retest reliability, sensitivity of PST and SDMT in discriminating MS patients from healthy controls (HC), convergent validity between PST and SDMT, correlations between T2 lesion load and PST and SDMT, and PST performance with and without technician present during administration. RESULTS: PST had excellent test-retest reliability, was highly correlated with SDMT, was slightly more sensitive than SDMT in discriminating MS from HC groups, and correlated better with cerebral T2 lesion load than did SDMT. Finally, PST performance was no different with or without a technician in the testing environment. CONCLUSION: PST has advantages over SDMT because of its efficient administration, scoring, and potential for medical record or research database integration. PST is a practical tool for routine screening of processing speed deficits in the MS clinic.
BACKGROUND:Cognitive dysfunction is common in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and has important consequences for daily activities, yet, unlike motor function, is not routinely assessed in the clinic setting. We developed the Processing Speed Test (PST), a self-administered iPad®-based tool to measure MS-related deficits in processing speed. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the PST is valid for screening cognitive dysfunction by comparing it to the paper-and-pencil Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). METHODS: We assessed PST test-retest reliability, sensitivity of PST and SDMT in discriminating MS patients from healthy controls (HC), convergent validity between PST and SDMT, correlations between T2 lesion load and PST and SDMT, and PST performance with and without technician present during administration. RESULTS: PST had excellent test-retest reliability, was highly correlated with SDMT, was slightly more sensitive than SDMT in discriminating MS from HC groups, and correlated better with cerebral T2 lesion load than did SDMT. Finally, PST performance was no different with or without a technician in the testing environment. CONCLUSION: PST has advantages over SDMT because of its efficient administration, scoring, and potential for medical record or research database integration. PST is a practical tool for routine screening of processing speed deficits in the MS clinic.
Entities:
Keywords:
Multiple sclerosis; attention; cognition; magnetic resonance imaging; neuropsychology; test–retest reliability; validity of results
Authors: Gabrielle Macaron; Brandon P Moss; Hong Li; Laura E Baldassari; Stephen M Rao; David Schindler; Jay L Alberts; Malory Weber; Malissa Ayers; François Bethoux; Adrienne Boissy; Desiree Chizmadia; Devon S Conway; Charlene Fink; Robert J Fox; Shauna Gales; Bethany Green; Claire Hara-Cleaver; Neal Jordan; Kedar R Mahajan; Marisa P McGinley; Deborah M Miller; Marie Namey; Alexander Rae-Grant; Mary Rensel; Hilary Young; Mary A Willis; Daniel Ontaneda; Jeffrey A Cohen; Robert A Bermel Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2020-06
Authors: Le H Hua; Carrie M Hersh; Fan Tian; Ellen M Mowry; Kathryn C Fitzgerald Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Michael Gold; Joan Amatniek; Maria C Carrillo; Jesse M Cedarbaum; James A Hendrix; Bradley B Miller; Julie M Robillard; J Jeremy Rice; Holly Soares; Maria B Tome; Ioannis Tarnanas; Gabriel Vargas; Lisa J Bain; Sara J Czaja Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2018-05-24
Authors: Jay L Alberts; Anson B Rosenfeldt; Cielita Lopez-Lennon; Erin Suttman; A Elizabeth Jansen; Peter B Imrey; Leland E Dibble Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2021-11-01
Authors: James F Sumowski; Ralph Benedict; Christian Enzinger; Massimo Filippi; Jeroen J Geurts; Paivi Hamalainen; Hanneke Hulst; Matilde Inglese; Victoria M Leavitt; Maria A Rocca; Eija M Rosti-Otajarvi; Stephen Rao Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ellen M Mowry; Robert A Bermel; James R Williams; Tammie L S Benzinger; Carl de Moor; Elizabeth Fisher; Carrie M Hersh; Megan H Hyland; Izlem Izbudak; Stephen E Jones; Bernd C Kieseier; Hagen H Kitzler; Lauren Krupp; Yvonne W Lui; Xavier Montalban; Robert T Naismith; Jacqueline A Nicholas; Fabio Pellegrini; Alex Rovira; Maximilian Schulze; Björn Tackenberg; Mar Tintore; Madalina E Tivarus; Tjalf Ziemssen; Richard A Rudick Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 4.003