There is currently no existing freely available short screen for cognitive problems that targets stroke survivors specifically. We have developed a short cognitive screen, the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS), to be completed in 15-20 min, designed for use with stroke patients. To maximize inclusion, the test is aphasia- and neglect friendly and covers domains of cognition where deficits frequently occur after stroke, including apraxia and unilateral neglect as well as memory, language, executive function, and number abilities. Domain-specific scores are returned to help direct rehabilitation. This article presents the normative data in a large sample of 140 neurologically healthy participants, a report on incidences of impairments in a sample of 208 acute stroke patients (within 3 weeks of stroke onset), measures of test-retest reliability on an alternate form and convergent and divergent validity. In addition, the full test materials are made freely available for clinical use.

Cognitive assessments after stroke are typically short form tests developed for dementia that generates pass/fail classifications (e.g. the MoCA). The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) provides a domain-specific cognitive profile designed for stroke survivors. This study compared the use of the MoCA and the OCS in acute stroke with respect to symptom specificity and aspects of clinical utility. A cross-sectional study with a consecutive sample of 200 stroke patients within 3 weeks of stroke completing MoCA and OCS. Demographic data, lesion side and Barthel scores were recorded. Inclusivity was assessed in terms of completion rates and reasons for non-completion were evaluated. The incidence of cognitive impairments on both the MoCA and OCS sub-domains was calculated and differences in stroke specificity, cognitive profiles and independence of the measures were addressed. The incidence of acute cognitive impairment was high: 76 % of patients were impaired on MoCA, and 86 % demonstrated at least one impairment on the cognitive domains assessed in the OCS. OCS was more sensitive than MoCA overall (87 vs 78 % sensitivity) and OCS alone provided domain-specific information on prevalent post-stroke cognitive impairments (neglect, apraxia and reading/writing ability). Unlike the MOCA, the OCS was not dominated by left hemisphere impairments but gave differentiated profiles across the contrasting domains. The OCS detects important cognitive deficits after stroke not assessed in the MoCA, it is inclusive for patients with aphasia and neglect and it is less confounded by co-occurring difficulties in these domains.

BackgroundIn a research study, to give a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of interventions, the outcome measures should reflect the lived experience of the condition. In dementia studies, this necessitates the use of outcome measures which capture the range of disease effects, not limited to cognitive functioning. In particular, assessing the functional impact of cognitive impairment is recommended by regulatory authorities, but there is no consensus on the optimal approach for outcome assessment in dementia research. Our aim was to describe the outcome measures used in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) intervention studies, with particular interest in those evaluating patient-centred outcomes of functional performance and quality of life.MethodsWe performed a focused review of the literature with multiple embedded checks of internal and external validity. We used the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group’s register of dementia studies, ALOIS. ALOIS was searched to obtain records of all registered dementia and MCI intervention studies over a 10-year period (2004–2014). We included both published and unpublished materials. Outcomes were categorised as cognitive, functional, quality of life, mood, behaviour, global/disease severity and institutionalisation.ResultsFrom an initial return of 3271 records, we included a total of 805 records, including 676 dementia trial records and 129 MCI trial records. Of these, 78 % (630) originated from peer-reviewed publications and 60 % (487) reported results of pharmacological interventions. Cognitive outcomes were reported in 70 % (563), in contrast with 29 % (237) reporting measures of functional performance and only 13 % (102) reporting quality of life measures. We identified significant heterogeneity in the tools used to capture these outcomes, with frequent use of non-standardised tests.ConclusionsThis focus on cognitive performance questions the extent to which intervention studies for dementia are evaluating outcome measures which are relevant to individual patients and their carers. The heterogeneity in measures, use of bespoke tools and poor descriptions of test strategy all support the need for a more standardised approach to the conduct and reporting of outcomes assessments.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13195-016-0216-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The OCS-Plus represents a major methodological advance in dementia studies in LMICs, and enhances understanding of cognitive aging.

Here, we present the Oxford Cognitive Screen-Plus, a computerised tablet-based screen designed to briefly assess domain-general cognition and provide more fine-grained measures of memory and executive function. The OCS-Plus was designed to sensitively screen for cognitive impairments and provide a differentiation between memory and executive deficits. The OCS-Plus contains 10 subtasks and requires on average 24 min to complete. In this study, 320 neurologically healthy ageing participants (age M = 62.66, SD = 13.75) from three sites completed the OCS-Plus. The convergent validity of this assessment was established in comparison to the ACE-R, CERAD and Rey–Osterrieth. Divergent validity was established through comparison with the BDI and tests measuring divergent cognitive domains. Internal consistency of each subtask was evaluated, and test–retest reliability was determined. We established the normative impairment cut-offs for each of the subtasks. Predicted convergent and divergent validity was found, high internal consistency for most measures was also found with the exception of restricted range tasks, as well as strong test–retest reliability, which provided evidence of test stability. Further research demonstrating the use and validity of the OCS-Plus in various clinical populations is required. The OCS-Plus is presented as a standardised cognitive assessment tool, normed and validated in a sample of neurologically healthy participants. The OCS-Plus will be available as an Android App and provides an automated report of domain-general cognitive impairments in executive attention and memory.