Lauren E Kenney1, Seth A Margolis1,2, Jennifer D Davis1,2, Geoffrey Tremont1,2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment subtest has shown strong diagnostic accuracy in dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD. Its relationship to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or all-cause dementia has not been fully examined nor has its ecological validity as a proxy of financial independence. METHOD: We describe 270 women (63%) and men (age = 72 ± 8.39) who completed Bill Payment during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Seventy-one were cognitively normal (CN), 160 had MCI, and 39 had Dementia. Two hundred fourteen were independent in money management, 31 were assisted (had oversight/some help), and 25 were dependent (relied on others). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested Bill Payment's utility as a dementia screen. Kruskal-Wallis tests examined whether Bill Payment differed by levels of financial independence. RESULTS: At a cutoff of 17, Bill Payment had strong sensitivity (0.87) and specificity (0.80) for dementia versus CN cases. A cutoff of 15 distinguished dementia from MCI (Sn = 0.64, Sp = 0.85), whereas a cutoff of 16 distinguished dementia from functionally unimpaired cases (MCI + CN) with greater sensitivity and similar specificity (Sn = 0.74, Sp = 0.81). Sensitivity attenuated in MCI versus CN cases (Sn = 0.46, Sp = 0.83). Those who were independent in money management had higher scores than assisted and dependent cases (p ≤ 0.046). Assisted and dependent cases were no different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bill Payment is a valid screen of all-cause dementia. Lower Bill Payment scores may mark subtle functional decline beyond cognitive impairment alone. Specifically, results provide preliminary evidence of Bill Payment's ecological validity as a measure related to financial independence. It may prove useful when impaired financial abilities are suspected but unreported.
OBJECTIVE: The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment subtest has shown strong diagnostic accuracy in dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) versus non-AD. Its relationship to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or all-cause dementia has not been fully examined nor has its ecological validity as a proxy of financial independence. METHOD: We describe 270 women (63%) and men (age = 72 ± 8.39) who completed Bill Payment during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Seventy-one were cognitively normal (CN), 160 had MCI, and 39 had Dementia. Two hundred fourteen were independent in money management, 31 were assisted (had oversight/some help), and 25 were dependent (relied on others). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested Bill Payment's utility as a dementia screen. Kruskal-Wallis tests examined whether Bill Payment differed by levels of financial independence. RESULTS: At a cutoff of 17, Bill Payment had strong sensitivity (0.87) and specificity (0.80) for dementia versus CN cases. A cutoff of 15 distinguished dementia from MCI (Sn = 0.64, Sp = 0.85), whereas a cutoff of 16 distinguished dementia from functionally unimpaired cases (MCI + CN) with greater sensitivity and similar specificity (Sn = 0.74, Sp = 0.81). Sensitivity attenuated in MCI versus CN cases (Sn = 0.46, Sp = 0.83). Those who were independent in money management had higher scores than assisted and dependent cases (p ≤ 0.046). Assisted and dependent cases were no different (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Bill Payment is a valid screen of all-cause dementia. Lower Bill Payment scores may mark subtle functional decline beyond cognitive impairment alone. Specifically, results provide preliminary evidence of Bill Payment's ecological validity as a measure related to financial independence. It may prove useful when impaired financial abilities are suspected but unreported.
Authors: Luis D Medina; Kate Heffernan; Samantha Holden; Abigail Simpson; Brianne M Bettcher Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 3.295