Dustin B Hammers1,2, Kayla R Suhrie1, Ava Dixon1, Sariah Porter1, Kevin Duff1,2. 1. Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging, and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Utah , Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2. Center on Aging, University of Utah , Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reliable change methods can assist the determination of whether observed changes in performance are meaningful. The current study sought to validate previously published standardized regression-based (SRB) equations for commonly administered cognitive tests using a cognitively intact sample of older adults, and extend findings by including relevant demographic and test-related variables known to predict cognitive performance. Method: This study applied previously published SRB prediction equations to 107 cognitively intact older adults assessed twice over one week. Prediction equations were also updated by pooling the current validation sample with 93 cognitively intact participants from original development sample to create a combined development sample. Results: Significant improvements were seen between observed baseline and follow-up scores on most measures. However, few differences were seen between observed follow-up scores and those predicted from these SRB algorithms, and the level of practice effects observed based on these equations were consistent with expectations. When SRBs were re-calculated from this combined development sample, predicted follow-up scores were mostly comparable with these equations, but standard errors of the estimate were consistently smaller. Conclusions: These results help support the validity of of these SRB equations to predict cognitive performance on these measures when repeated administration is necessary over short intervals. Findings also highlight the utility of expanding SRB models when predicting follow-up performance serially to provide more accurate assessment of reliable change at the level of the individual. As short-term practice effects are shown to predict cognitive performance annually, they possess the potential to inform clinical decision-making about individuals along the Alzheimer's continuum.
OBJECTIVE: Reliable change methods can assist the determination of whether observed changes in performance are meaningful. The current study sought to validate previously published standardized regression-based (SRB) equations for commonly administered cognitive tests using a cognitively intact sample of older adults, and extend findings by including relevant demographic and test-related variables known to predict cognitive performance. Method: This study applied previously published SRB prediction equations to 107 cognitively intact older adults assessed twice over one week. Prediction equations were also updated by pooling the current validation sample with 93 cognitively intact participants from original development sample to create a combined development sample. Results: Significant improvements were seen between observed baseline and follow-up scores on most measures. However, few differences were seen between observed follow-up scores and those predicted from these SRB algorithms, and the level of practice effects observed based on these equations were consistent with expectations. When SRBs were re-calculated from this combined development sample, predicted follow-up scores were mostly comparable with these equations, but standard errors of the estimate were consistently smaller. Conclusions: These results help support the validity of of these SRB equations to predict cognitive performance on these measures when repeated administration is necessary over short intervals. Findings also highlight the utility of expanding SRB models when predicting follow-up performance serially to provide more accurate assessment of reliable change at the level of the individual. As short-term practice effects are shown to predict cognitive performance annually, they possess the potential to inform clinical decision-making about individuals along the Alzheimer's continuum.
Authors: K M Rodrigue; K M Kennedy; M D Devous; J R Rieck; A C Hebrank; R Diaz-Arrastia; D Mathews; D C Park Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kevin Duff; Taylor J Atkinson; Kayla R Suhrie; Bonnie C Allred Dalley; Sydney Y Schaefer; Dustin B Hammers Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 2.475
Authors: Alicia M Goodwill; Stephen Campbell; Victor W Henderson; Alexandra Gorelik; Lorraine Dennerstein; Michael McClung; Cassandra Szoeke Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Eric Rinehardt; Kevin Duff; Michael Schoenberg; Michelle Mattingly; Kersi Bharucha; James Scott Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Kevin Duff; Constantine G Lyketsos; Leigh J Beglinger; Gordon Chelune; David J Moser; Stephan Arndt; Susan K Schultz; Jane S Paulsen; Ronald C Petersen; Robert J McCaffrey Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.105