Paulina V Devora1, Samantha Beevers2, Andrew M Kiselica1, Jared F Benge1,3,4. 1. Division of Neuropsychology, Department of Neurology, Baylor Scott and White Health, Temple, TX 76508, USA. 2. Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Temple, TX 76508, USA. 3. Texas A&M Health Science Center, Temple, TX 76508, USA. 4. Plummer Movement Disorders Center, Temple, TX 76508, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Uniform Data Set 3.0 (UDS 3.0) neuropsychological battery is a recently published battery intended for clinical research with older adult populations. While normative data for the core measures has been published, several additional discrepancy and derived scores can also be calculated. We present normative data for Trail Making Test (TMT) A & B discrepancy and ratio scores, semantic and phonemic fluency discrepancy scores, Craft Story percent retention score, Benson Figure percent retention score, difference between verbal and visual percent retention, and an error index. METHOD: Cross-Sectional data from 1803 English speaking, cognitively normal control participants were obtained from the NACC central data repository. RESULTS: Descriptive information for derived indices is presented. Demographic variables, most commonly age, demonstrated small but significant associations with the measures. Regression values were used to create a normative calculator, made available in a downloadable supplement. Statistically abnormal values (i.e., raw scores corresponding to the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) were calculated to assist in practical application of normative findings to individual cases. Preliminary validity of the indices are demonstrated by a case study and group comparisons between a sample of individuals with Alzheimer's (N = 81) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB; N = 100). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically useful normative data of such derived indices from the UDS 3.0 neuropsychological battery are presented to help researchers and clinicians interpret these scores, accounting for demographic factors. Preliminary validity data is presented as well along with limitations and future directions.
OBJECTIVE: The Uniform Data Set 3.0 (UDS 3.0) neuropsychological battery is a recently published battery intended for clinical research with older adult populations. While normative data for the core measures has been published, several additional discrepancy and derived scores can also be calculated. We present normative data for Trail Making Test (TMT) A & B discrepancy and ratio scores, semantic and phonemic fluency discrepancy scores, Craft Story percent retention score, Benson Figure percent retention score, difference between verbal and visual percent retention, and an error index. METHOD: Cross-Sectional data from 1803 English speaking, cognitively normal control participants were obtained from the NACC central data repository. RESULTS: Descriptive information for derived indices is presented. Demographic variables, most commonly age, demonstrated small but significant associations with the measures. Regression values were used to create a normative calculator, made available in a downloadable supplement. Statistically abnormal values (i.e., raw scores corresponding to the 5th, 10th, 90th, and 95th percentiles) were calculated to assist in practical application of normative findings to individual cases. Preliminary validity of the indices are demonstrated by a case study and group comparisons between a sample of individuals with Alzheimer's (N = 81) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB; N = 100). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically useful normative data of such derived indices from the UDS 3.0 neuropsychological battery are presented to help researchers and clinicians interpret these scores, accounting for demographic factors. Preliminary validity data is presented as well along with limitations and future directions.
Authors: S Craft; J Newcomer; S Kanne; S Dagogo-Jack; P Cryer; Y Sheline; J Luby; A Dagogo-Jack; A Alderson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 1996 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Lisa D Hankee; Sarah R Preis; Alexa S Beiser; Sherral A Devine; Yulin Liu; Sudha Seshadri; Philip A Wolf; Rhoda Au Journal: Exp Aging Res Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.645
Authors: Rodolfo Savica; Brandon R Grossardt; James H Bower; Bradley F Boeve; J Eric Ahlskog; Walter A Rocca Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Karra D Harrington; Yen Ying Lim; David Ames; Jason Hassenstab; Stephanie Rainey-Smith; Joanne Robertson; Olivier Salvado; Colin L Masters; Paul Maruff Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Steven D Shirk; Meghan B Mitchell; Lynn W Shaughnessy; Janet C Sherman; Joseph J Locascio; Sandra Weintraub; Alireza Atri Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Sandra Weintraub; Lilah Besser; Hiroko H Dodge; Merilee Teylan; Steven Ferris; Felicia C Goldstein; Bruno Giordani; Joel Kramer; David Loewenstein; Dan Marson; Dan Mungas; David Salmon; Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Steven D Shirk; Alireza Atri; Walter A Kukull; Creighton Phelps; John C Morris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2018 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: RoShunna Lea; Jared F Benge; Charles H Adler; Thomas G Beach; Christine M Belden; Nan Zhang; Holly A Shill; Erika Driver-Dunckley; Shyamal H Mehta; Alireza Atri Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Cuiling Wang; Mindy J Katz; Katherine H Chang; Jiyue Qin; Richard B Lipton; Jessica L Zwerling; Martin J Sliwinski; Carol A Derby; Laura A Rabin Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472