Jinhyun Lee1, Shauna Dudley-Javoroski1, Richard K Shields1. 1. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether the motor demands of cognitive tests contribute to differences in cognitive function scores in participants with and without spinal cord injury (SCI).Design: Cohort study.Setting: Rehabilitation research laboratory.Participants: 68 individuals without SCI ("NON") and 22 individuals with motor complete SCI ("SCI").Interventions: None.Outcome Measures: NIH Toolbox cognitive assessments, including two with motor demands and reaction-time based scoring (Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS), Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (Flanker) and two without timed scoring (List Sorting Working Memory (List Sorting), Picture Sequence Memory Test (Picture Sequence). Tests were administered with and without the assistance of a proctor on two randomly-determined days (>24 hr interval). For DCCS and Flanker, the motor-task score offset was estimated as the difference between the proctored and non-proctored scores. Results: For demographically-corrected data, proctoring reduced DCCS and Flanker scores (P < 0.001) but mitigated apparent differences between SCI and NON (all P > 0.403). SCI and NON did not differ for List Sorting (P > 0.072) but did differ significantly for Picture Sequence (P < 0.001). Significant practice effects existed for memory-based tests (List Sorting and Picture Sequence); all P < 0.015, effect size>0.645.Conclusions: DCCS and Flanker scores for individuals with SCI may be artificially reduced consequent to secondary motor demands of the tests. Proctoring and computation of a motor-response score offset enables comparisons to be made between individuals with SCI and a Non-SCI control cohort; however, further work is needed to determine whether offset-adjusted scores can be compared to standardized normative values.
Objective: To determine whether the motor demands of cognitive tests contribute to differences in cognitive function scores in participants with and without spinal cord injury (SCI).Design: Cohort study.Setting: Rehabilitation research laboratory.Participants: 68 individuals without SCI ("NON") and 22 individuals with motor complete SCI ("SCI").Interventions: None.Outcome Measures: NIH Toolbox cognitive assessments, including two with motor demands and reaction-time based scoring (Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS), Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention (Flanker) and two without timed scoring (List Sorting Working Memory (List Sorting), Picture Sequence Memory Test (Picture Sequence). Tests were administered with and without the assistance of a proctor on two randomly-determined days (>24 hr interval). For DCCS and Flanker, the motor-task score offset was estimated as the difference between the proctored and non-proctored scores. Results: For demographically-corrected data, proctoring reduced DCCS and Flanker scores (P < 0.001) but mitigated apparent differences between SCI and NON (all P > 0.403). SCI and NON did not differ for List Sorting (P > 0.072) but did differ significantly for Picture Sequence (P < 0.001). Significant practice effects existed for memory-based tests (List Sorting and Picture Sequence); all P < 0.015, effect size>0.645.Conclusions: DCCS and Flanker scores for individuals with SCI may be artificially reduced consequent to secondary motor demands of the tests. Proctoring and computation of a motor-response score offset enables comparisons to be made between individuals with SCI and a Non-SCI control cohort; however, further work is needed to determine whether offset-adjusted scores can be compared to standardized normative values.
Authors: David S Tulsky; Noelle Carlozzi; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Jennifer L Beaumont; Pamela A Kisala; Dan Mungas; Kevin Conway; Richard Gershon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Junfang Wu; Bogdan A Stoica; Tao Luo; Boris Sabirzhanov; Zaorui Zhao; Kelsey Guanciale; Suresh K Nayar; Catherine A Foss; Martin G Pomper; Alan I Faden Journal: Cell Cycle Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.534
Authors: Michelle Trbovich; Terry Romo; Marsha Polk; Wouter Koek; Che Kelly; Sharon Stowe; Stephen Kraus; Dean Kellogg Journal: Spinal Cord Ser Cases Date: 2021-06-10