The Cambridge cognitive examination (CAMCOG): validation of the Hebrew version in elderly demented patients

Abstract

Background and purpose The CAMCOG is the second most popular cognitive testing instrument in use by Israeli clinicians. The present study examines the reliability and validity of a Hebrew version of the CAMCOG in a group of dementia sufferers in a clinical setting. Method Study participants included 36 dementia sufferers and 19 control non‐demented, depressed elderly subjects, consecutive referrals to an outpatient psychogeriatric service and an ‘open’ ward of a psychiatric hospital. Operational clinical criteria for dementia and its subtypes and for the various forms of depression were used as the ‘gold’ standards. The CAMCOG was translated into Hebrew and then back to English. Seven items needed modifications for local usage. Results Interrater and test–retest scores calculated as exact agreement rates ranged from good to excellent for all items, although test–retest reliability scores were generally lower than interrater scores. Kappa statistics ranged from good to excellent for all but one item in the interrater scores and for two items in the test–retest scores. A strong convergent validity was found with the MMSE score (r=0.89, p<0.01). The 79/80 cutoff point provided moderate sensitivity (57.9%), excellent specificity (97.2%) and a strong predictive value (83.6%). Conclusion The Hebrew version of the CAMCOG was found to be an appropriate instrument to discriminate between demented and non‐demented depressed controls in a clinical setting. In light of the demographic, cultural and linguistic heterogeneity of the Israeli elderly population, further studies should examine the psychometric characteristics of the CAMCOG in a more varied sample and also using other cutoff points in order to establish if an increase in its discriminatory power is obtainable. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behavioral Competence and Emotional Well-Being of Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment

“…Study participants with AD and MCI were identified in Germany through the memory clinics of the Department of General Psychiatry, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg (Germany) and the Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim (Germany), respectively, and in Israel through the psychogeriatric center of the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. A comprehensive medical, neuropsychological, and neuropsychiatric assessment, including the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) standardized procedure for the evaluation and diagnosis of patients with cognitive impairments (Morris, Heyman, Mohs, & Hughes, 1989; German version by Thalmann et al, 2000) in Germany and the CAMCOG-R (Hebrew version by Heinik, Werner, Mendel, Raikher, & Bleich, 1999; Roth, Huppert, Tym, & Mountjoy, 1998) in Israel, was carried out.…”

Serum alkaline phosphatase is related to cognitive impairment in patients with subcortical ischemic vascular disease

“…Fasting blood samples were obtained from all participants early in the morning via the antecubital vein, and an automatic biochemical analyzer (Swedish Modular DPP AYL-5-001) was used to determine the levels of the following biochemical indices: serum ALP, Alanine Aminotransferase (ALT), Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST), creatinine, Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN), Fasting Blood Glucose (FBG), triglyceride, total cholesterol, High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (HDL-C), and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C). The Minimental State Examination (MMSE) and the Cambridge Cognitive Examination-Chinese version (CAMCOG-C) were administered to evaluate neuropsychological status [14,15]; the CAMCOG-C includes scales assessing orientation, language (expression and understanding), memory (remote, recent, learning), attention, praxis, calculation, abstract thinking, and perception.…”

Reliability of the Brazilian version of the Cambridge Cognitive Examination Revised CAMCOG-R

“…The operational difficulties during the interrater reliability study, which demanded the presence of two raters in the interview room at the same time, caused the studied sample to be smaller than that of the test-retest. However, it does not seem to us that this fact jeopardized the quality of the results, since similar studies were made with samples containing 40 to 55 subjects 8,10 .…”

“…The complexity of the instrument demands training for the raters and the copyright is reserved by the Cambridge University Press. several reliability and validity studies analysing the first version of the instrument (CAMCOG) have been published 3,[8][9][10] , the same being true of the revised version (CAMCOG-R) [11][12][13][14][15] .In Brazil, the only study found by the authors which validates instruments from this country's perspective was the one written by Bottino et al 16 , who made a translation and an adaptation into Portuguese of CAMdEX, and studied the reliability of this Brazilian version using 40 elderly subjects. The interrater reliability, which was evaluated using the ICC, proved to be high, varying from 0.79 to 0.99 for a pair of psychiatrists who applied the instrument, and from 0.67 to 1.0 for another pair (p<0.001).…”