The Trail Making Test may not be equivalent across cultures, i.e., differences in the scores across different cultures may not reveal real differences in the ability of the subjects on the construct being measured. In order to assess this hypothesis, normative samples from ten different countries were compared. Age decade subgroups across samples were ranked based on mean time taken to complete each part of the task. Large Z scores differences were found between these samples when comparing the first with the second, and the last in the rank. These differences were significant even when age and education were comparable across samples. Following Van de Vijver & Tanzer (1997), several possible sources of bias were identified. Incomparability of samples and administration differences were the most likely factors accounting for differences. Because of the lack of validity studies in the countries considered, no firm conclusions could be obtained regarding construct bias. Although the TMT may be measuring visual scanning, psychomotor speed and mental flexibility, normative data from different countries and cultures are not equivalent which might lead to serious diagnostic errors.

No abstract

The present longitudinal prospective study compared results from the Geriatric Depression Scale with those from the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale for 30 dementia patients. The criterion measure was presence of depression as indicated by the psychiatric diagnosis. The psychiatrist and physician's assistant made the Hamilton ratings while the psychology staff administered the Geriatric Depression Scale. The two measures were statistically unrelated from Times 1 and 2 (rs = .26 and .41). Eleven (37%) patients were depressed and nine received antidepressant medications. Sensitivity ratings were 82% and 9%, respectively, and specificity ratings were 88% and 92%, respectively. Possible explanations for the success of the Geriatric Depression Scale and lack of success of the Hamilton ratings in detecting depression in this population are discussed.

Conventional norms that test presumably normal elderly individuals at one point in time may include preclinical cases of dementia and therefore may be less sensitive to the presence of dementia (Sliwinski, Lipton, Buschke, & Stewart, 1996). A sample of presumably normal African American and White rural community older adults (first reported in Marcopulos, McLain, & Giuliano, 1997) were retested after approximately 4 years to develop "robust" norms for the Mini Mental State Examination, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale Fuld Object Memory Evaluation, WAIS-R Vocabulary and Block Design, Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction, Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices, and Clock Drawing Test. Ninety-four out of the original 133 participants were located and agreed to be retested. Twelve of the participants retested at Time 2 showed significant decline on testing relative to their own baseline and were dropped from the recalculated norms. Participants who declined on testing tended to be older, less educated, had lower WAIS-R scores on Vocabulary and Block Design combined, had poorer IADLs and were less socially active. There was no difference in physical health status or level of depression. Recalculated group means showed little change when the participants who declined had been removed, but this left very few participants at the extremes of age (>85 years) and education (<4 years). It appears that the incidence of cognitive decline in this sample is comparable to other community samples of cognitive decline and dementia. Results are discussed in light of the practical difficulties of identifying preclinical dementia for deriving robust norms, implications for the theory of cognitive reserve, risk of cognitive decline in persons with low education and/or low premorbid mental ability and the clinical utility of utilizing education-corrected norms.

Objective: To propose a set of internationally harmonized procedures and methods for assessing neurocognitive functions, smell, taste, mental, and psychosocial health, and other factors in adults formally diagnosed with COVID-19 (confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 + WHO definition). Methods: We formed an international and cross-disciplinary NeuroCOVID Neuropsychology Taskforce in April 2020. Seven criteria were used to guide the selection of the recommendations’ methods and procedures: (i) Relevance to all COVID-19 illness stages and longitudinal study design; (ii) Standard, cross-culturally valid or widely available instruments; (iii) Coverage of both direct and indirect causes of COVID-19-associated neurological and psychiatric symptoms; (iv) Control of factors specifically pertinent to COVID-19 that may affect neuropsychological performance; (v) Flexibility of administration (telehealth, computerized, remote/online, face to face); (vi) Harmonization for facilitating international research; (vii) Ease of translation to clinical practice. Results: The three proposed levels of harmonization include a screening strategy with telehealth option, a medium-size computerized assessment with an online/remote option, and a comprehensive evaluation with flexible administration. The context in which each harmonization level might be used is described. Issues of assessment timelines, guidance for home/remote assessment to support data fidelity and telehealth considerations, cross-cultural adequacy, norms, and impairment definitions are also described. Conclusions: The proposed recommendations provide rationale and methodological guidance for neuropsychological research studies and clinical assessment in adults with COVID-19. We expect that the use of the recommendations will facilitate data harmonization and global research. Research implementing the recommendations will be crucial to determine their acceptability, usability, and validity.