E K Schworer1, A J Esbensen1,2, D J Fidler3, D W Beebe2,4, A Carle2,5,6, S Wiley1,2. 1. Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 3. Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 4. Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 5. James M Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA. 6. Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a critical need for the psychometric evaluation of outcome measures to be used in clinical trials targeting cognition in Down syndrome (DS). This study examines a specific cognitive skill that is of particular importance in DS, working memory, and the psychometric properties of a set of standardised measurements to assess working memory in individuals with DS. METHODS: Ninety children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years old with DS were assessed on a selection of verbal and visuospatial working memory subtests of standardised clinical assessments at two time points to examine feasibility, distributional qualities, test-retest reliability and convergent validity against a priori criteria. Caregivers also completed an adaptive behaviour questionnaire to address working memory subtests' associations with broader developmental functioning. RESULTS: The Stanford Binet-5 Verbal Working Memory, Differential Ability Scales-2 Recognition of Pictures, Stanford Binet-5 Nonverbal Working Memory and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-5 Picture Span measures met the most psychometric criteria overall across the full age and IQ range of the study. Although Differential Ability Scales-2 Recall of Sequential Order and Differential Ability Scales-2 Recall of Digits Backward met the fewest a priori criteria, follow-up analyses suggested greater feasibility in specific age and IQ ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Several working memory measures appear to be psychometrically sound and appropriate for use in clinical trials for children with DS, especially when focusing on raw scores. However, floor effects on standard scores and feasibility of some measures were problematic. Guidelines for use of the working memory subtests with this population are provided.
BACKGROUND: There is a critical need for the psychometric evaluation of outcome measures to be used in clinical trials targeting cognition in Down syndrome (DS). This study examines a specific cognitive skill that is of particular importance in DS, working memory, and the psychometric properties of a set of standardised measurements to assess working memory in individuals with DS. METHODS: Ninety children and adolescents ages 6 to 18 years old with DS were assessed on a selection of verbal and visuospatial working memory subtests of standardised clinical assessments at two time points to examine feasibility, distributional qualities, test-retest reliability and convergent validity against a priori criteria. Caregivers also completed an adaptive behaviour questionnaire to address working memory subtests' associations with broader developmental functioning. RESULTS: The Stanford Binet-5 Verbal Working Memory, Differential Ability Scales-2 Recognition of Pictures, Stanford Binet-5 Nonverbal Working Memory and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-5 Picture Span measures met the most psychometric criteria overall across the full age and IQ range of the study. Although Differential Ability Scales-2 Recall of Sequential Order and Differential Ability Scales-2 Recall of Digits Backward met the fewest a priori criteria, follow-up analyses suggested greater feasibility in specific age and IQ ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Several working memory measures appear to be psychometrically sound and appropriate for use in clinical trials for children with DS, especially when focusing on raw scores. However, floor effects on standard scores and feasibility of some measures were problematic. Guidelines for use of the working memory subtests with this population are provided.
Authors: Samantha E Parker; Cara T Mai; Mark A Canfield; Russel Rickard; Ying Wang; Robert E Meyer; Patrick Anderson; Craig A Mason; Julianne S Collins; Russell S Kirby; Adolfo Correa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2010-09-28
Authors: Ishita Das; Joo-Min Park; Jung H Shin; Soo Kyeong Jeon; Hernan Lorenzi; David J Linden; Paul F Worley; Roger H Reeves Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Jamie O Edgin; Payal Anand; Tracie Rosser; Elizabeth I Pierpont; Carlos Figueroa; Debra Hamilton; Lillie Huddleston; Gina Mason; Goffredina Spanò; Lisa Toole; Mina Nguyen-Driver; George Capone; Leonard Abbeduto; Cheryl Maslen; Roger H Reeves; Stephanie Sherman Journal: Am J Intellect Dev Disabil Date: 2017-05
Authors: Lisa A Daunhauer; Deborah J Fidler; Laura Hahn; Elizabeth Will; Nancy Raitano Lee; Susan Hepburn Journal: Am J Intellect Dev Disabil Date: 2014-07
Authors: Jamie O Edgin; Gina M Mason; Melissa J Allman; George T Capone; Iser Deleon; Cheryl Maslen; Roger H Reeves; Stephanie L Sherman; Lynn Nadel Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Catelyn N Smeyne; Anna J Esbensen; Emily K Schworer; Shequanna Belizaire; Emily K Hoffman; Dean W Beebe; Susan Wiley Journal: Am J Intellect Dev Disabil Date: 2022-07-01