Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Development of the Diagnostic Matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test, Compared to Traditional Paper-and-Pencil Neuropsychological Tests
Na S, Kim YJ, Kim SE, Jung NY, Kim SJ, Kim HJ, Shin JS, Na DL et al.. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders, 2024-10-23
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Plain-language summary
Background and purpose We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD-K). Methods We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p <0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI ( p =0.145). In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p <0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia ( p =0.169 and p =0.778, respectively). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Na, S., Kim, Y. J., Kim, S. E., Jung, N. Y., Kim, S. J., Kim, H. J., et al. (2024). Development of the Diagnostic Matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test, Compared to Traditional Paper-and-Pencil Neuropsychological Tests. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2024.23.4.224
Vancouver
Na S, Kim YJ, Kim SE, Jung NY, Kim SJ, Kim HJ, et al. Development of the Diagnostic Matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test, Compared to Traditional Paper-and-Pencil Neuropsychological Tests. Dementia and neurocognitive disorders. 2024. doi:10.12779/dnd.2024.23.4.224. PMID: 39512698.
BibTeX
@article{na2024-39512698,
author = {Na, S. and Kim, Y. J. and Kim, S. E. and Jung, N. Y. and Kim, S. J. and Kim, H. J. and Shin, J. S. and Na, D. L. and others},
title = {{Development of the Diagnostic Matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test, Compared to Traditional Paper-and-Pencil Neuropsychological Tests}},
journal = {Dementia and neurocognitive disorders},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.12779/dnd.2024.23.4.224},
pmid = {39512698},
url = {https://doi.org/10.12779/dnd.2024.23.4.224}
}
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 The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87).
- In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p <0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI ( p =0.145).
- In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p <0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia ( p =0.169 and p =0.778, respectively).
- Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.
Study details
- Participants197
- Effect size83.9%; 84.3%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and neurocognitive disorders) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 197 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 39512698) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 60 out of 100. |
| Total | 60 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.