Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Cleveland Clinic Cognitive Battery (C3B): Normative, Reliability, and Validation Studies of a Self-Administered Computerized Tool for Screening Cognitive Dysfunction in Primary Care
Rao SM, Galioto R, Sokolowski M, Pierce M, Penn L, Sturtevant A, Skugor B, Anstead B et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2023-01-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The self-administered iPad-based Cleveland Clinic Cognitive Battery (C3B) was designed specifically for the efficient screening of cognitive functioning of older adults in a primary care setting. Objective 1) Generate regression-based norms from healthy participants to enable demographic corrections to facilitate clinical interpretation; 2) estimate test-retest reliability and practice effects; 3) examine ability to discriminate mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from healthy aging; 4) d etermine validity of screening in a distracting clinical environment; and 5) determine completion rates and patient satisfaction in a primary care setting. Methods Study 1 (S1) recruited a stratified sample of 428 healthy adults, ages 18-89, to generate regression-based equations. S2 assessed 2-week test-retest reliability and practice effects in 30 healthy elders. S3 recruited 30 MCI patients and 30 demographically-matched healthy controls. In S4, 30 healthy elders self-administered the C3B in a distracting environment and in a quiet private room in counterbalanced order. In a demonstration project, 470 consecutive primary care patients were administered the C3B as part of routine clinical care (S5). Results C3B performance was primarily influenced by age, education, and race (S1), had acceptably high test-retest reliability and minimal practice effects (S2), discriminated MCI from healthy controls (S3), was not negatively impacted by a distracting clinical environment (S4), had high completion rates (>92%) and positive ratings from primary care patients (S5). Conclusion The C3B is a computerized cognitive screening tool that is reliable, validated, self-administered, and is conducive to integration into a busy primary care clinical workflow for detecting MCI, early Alzheimer's disease, and other related dementias.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rao, S. M., Galioto, R., Sokolowski, M., Pierce, M., Penn, L., Sturtevant, A., et al. (2023). Cleveland Clinic Cognitive Battery (C3B): Normative, Reliability, and Validation Studies of a Self-Administered Computerized Tool for Screening Cognitive Dysfunction in Primary Care. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220929
Vancouver
Rao SM, Galioto R, Sokolowski M, Pierce M, Penn L, Sturtevant A, et al. Cleveland Clinic Cognitive Battery (C3B): Normative, Reliability, and Validation Studies of a Self-Administered Computerized Tool for Screening Cognitive Dysfunction in Primary Care. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2023. doi:10.3233/jad-220929. PMID: 36847000.
BibTeX
@article{rao2023-36847000,
author = {Rao, S. M. and Galioto, R. and Sokolowski, M. and Pierce, M. and Penn, L. and Sturtevant, A. and Skugor, B. and Anstead, B. and others},
title = {{Cleveland Clinic Cognitive Battery (C3B): Normative, Reliability, and Validation Studies of a Self-Administered Computerized Tool for Screening Cognitive Dysfunction in Primary Care}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.3233/jad-220929},
pmid = {36847000},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-220929}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results C3B performance was primarily influenced by age, education, and race (S1), had acceptably high test-retest reliability and minimal practice effects (S2), discriminated MCI from healthy controls (S3), was not negatively impacted by a distracting clinical environment (S4), had high completion rates (>92%) and positive ratings from primary care patients (S5).
Study details
- Participants30
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 30 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36847000) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “cognitive-battery”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-battery”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.