2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.11.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring longitudinal cognition: Individual tests versus composites

Abstract: Introduction Longitudinal cohort studies of cognitive aging must confront several sources of within‐person variability in scores. In this article, we compare several neuropsychological measures in terms of longitudinal error variance and relationships with biomarker‐assessed brain amyloidosis (Aβ). Methods Analyses used data from the Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer's Prevention. We quantified within‐person longitudinal variability and age‐related trajectories for several global and domain‐specific composites … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
109
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

6
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(114 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
4
109
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Patients were then separated into two memory groups based on a mean composite delayed memory score (combined delayed story recall and delayed wordlist recall). 21,22 Patients with scores < 85 were classified as having "impaired" memory (n = 10), and those with mean standard scores of 85 or above were classified as having "intact" memory (n = 13).…”
Section: Memory Measures and Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients were then separated into two memory groups based on a mean composite delayed memory score (combined delayed story recall and delayed wordlist recall). 21,22 Patients with scores < 85 were classified as having "impaired" memory (n = 10), and those with mean standard scores of 85 or above were classified as having "intact" memory (n = 13).…”
Section: Memory Measures and Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A limitation of the clinical progression analysis was its circularity: story recall total score is a factor used in determining cognitive impairment in the WRAP consensus process. In future analyses, we can use actuarial definitions of impairment (Bondi et al, 2014;Jak et al, 2016) based on tests not including Logical Memory and our internally derived norms (Clark, Koscik, et al, 2016;Koscik et al, 2019;Koscik et al, 2014) to compare how the lexical categories predict progression relative to the traditionally-used total scores.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently our group compared several versions of the PACC, as well as theoretically derived cognitive composite scores, and found that within the WRAP group a version referred to as "PACC-3" was sensitive to cognitive decline. This version omits the MMSE and includes an average of standardized scores from total recall from Rey AVLT, delayed recall from Logical Memory A & B, and Digit Symbol Substitution (Jonaitis et al, 2019). In secondary analyses, we examined whether the PACC-3 from the first available visit (median visit = 2) would predict morel variability in PiB positivity than the lexical categories variables.…”
Section: Secondary Predictor: the Preclinical Cognitive Composite Scomentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Global scores fail to indicate performance on specific cognitive abilities that may hold stronger relationships with sQOL. Using methods such as factor analysis to identify latent factors from among broader cognitive test batteries, such that multiple items load on each factor to create composite scores, can improve the reliability and efficiency of measurement [14]. Applying such an approach to examine the cognitive-sQOL relationship could be beneficial.…”
Section: The Cognition-sqol Relationshipmentioning
confidence: 99%