Janice C Marceaux1, Michelle A Prosje2, Leslie A McClure3, Bhumika Kana4, Michael Crowe5, Brett Kissela6, Jennifer Manly7, George Howard8, Joyce W Tam9, Frederick W Unverzagt9, Virginia G Wadley4. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, TX. 2. NeuroBehavioral Specialists of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 7. Department of Neurology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 8. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 9. Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Describe novel methods for ascertaining verbal fluency in a large national sample of adults, examine demographic factors influencing performance, and compare scores to studies using in-person assessment. METHODS/ DESIGN: Participants were from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national, population-based, longitudinal study of stroke in adults aged 45 years and older. Letter and semantic fluency were gathered, using Letter "F" and Animal Naming, via a telephone-based assessment with computer-assisted scoring of digital recordings. RESULTS: Initial letter and semantic fluency scores were obtained on 18 505 and 18 072 participants, respectively. For both fluency tests, scores were normally distributed. Younger age and more years of education were associated with better performances (p < 0.0001). The mean and standard deviation for matched subgroups, based on age, gender, and education, were quite comparable with scores reported out of samples using an in-person administration format. Telephone-based assessment also allowed for a level of quality control not available via in-person measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-based assessment of verbal fluency and computer-assisted scoring programs designed for this study facilitated large-scale data acquisition, storage, and scoring of protocols. The resulting scores have similar characteristics to those obtained by traditional methods. These findings extend validation of cognitive assessment methods, using survey research staff and computer-assisted technology for test administration.
OBJECTIVES: Describe novel methods for ascertaining verbal fluency in a large national sample of adults, examine demographic factors influencing performance, and compare scores to studies using in-person assessment. METHODS/ DESIGN:Participants were from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national, population-based, longitudinal study of stroke in adults aged 45 years and older. Letter and semantic fluency were gathered, using Letter "F" and Animal Naming, via a telephone-based assessment with computer-assisted scoring of digital recordings. RESULTS: Initial letter and semantic fluency scores were obtained on 18 505 and 18 072 participants, respectively. For both fluency tests, scores were normally distributed. Younger age and more years of education were associated with better performances (p < 0.0001). The mean and standard deviation for matched subgroups, based on age, gender, and education, were quite comparable with scores reported out of samples using an in-person administration format. Telephone-based assessment also allowed for a level of quality control not available via in-person measurement. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone-based assessment of verbal fluency and computer-assisted scoring programs designed for this study facilitated large-scale data acquisition, storage, and scoring of protocols. The resulting scores have similar characteristics to those obtained by traditional methods. These findings extend validation of cognitive assessment methods, using survey research staff and computer-assisted technology for test administration.
Authors: A Acevedo; D A Loewenstein; W W Barker; D G Harwood; C Luis; M Bravo; D A Hurwitz; H Aguero; L Greenfield; R Duara Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Robert F Woolson; Brent M Egan; Joyce S Nicholas; Robert J Adams; George Howard; Daniel T Lackland Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2010 Jan-Feb
Authors: Elsayed Z Soliman; George Howard; Ronald J Prineas; Leslie A McClure; Virginia J Howard Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Ronald M Lazar; Virginia G Wadley; Terina Myers; Michael R Jones; Donald V Heck; Wayne M Clark; Randolph S Marshall; Virginia J Howard; Jenifer H Voeks; Jennifer J Manly; Claudia S Moy; Seemant Chaturvedi; James F Meschia; Brajesh K Lal; Thomas G Brott; George Howard Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Diane Von Ah; Adele D Crouch; Patrick O Monahan; Timothy E Stump; Frederick W Unverzagt; Susan Storey; Andrea A Cohee; David Cella; Victoria L Champion Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-06-26 Impact factor: 4.062