Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Laptop-Administered NIH Toolbox and Cogstate Brief Battery in Community-Dwelling Black Adults: Unexpected Pattern of Cognitive Performance between MCI and Healthy Controls
Kairys A, Daugherty A, Kavcic V, Shair S, Persad C, Heidebrink J, Bhaumik A, Giordani B.. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2021-03-23
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective Black adults are approximately twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease (AD) than non-Hispanic Whites and access diagnostic services later in their illness. This dictates the need to develop assessments that are cost-effective, easily administered, and sensitive to preclinical stages of AD, such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Two computerized cognitive batteries, NIH Toolbox-Cognition and Cogstate Brief Battery, have been developed. However, utility of these measures for clinical characterization remains only partially determined. We sought to determine the convergent validity of these computerized measures in relation to consensus diagnosis in a sample of MCI and healthy controls (HC). Method Participants were community-dwelling Black adults who completed the neuropsychological battery and other Uniform Data Set (UDS) forms from the AD centers program for consensus diagnosis (HC = 61; MCI = 43) and the NIH Toolbox-Cognition and Cogstate batteries. Discriminant function analysis was used to determine which cognitive tests best differentiated the groups. Results NIH Toolbox crystallized measures, Oral Reading and Picture Vocabulary, were the most sensitive in identifying MCI apart from HC. Secondarily, deficits in memory and executive subtests were also predictive. UDS neuropsychological test analyses showed the expected pattern of memory and executive functioning tests differentiating MCI from HC. Conclusions Contrary to expectation, NIH Toolbox crystallized abilities appeared preferentially sensitive to diagnostic group differences. This study highlights the importance of further research into the validity and clinical utility of computerized neuropsychological tests within ethnic minority populations.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kairys, A., Daugherty, A., Kavcic, V., Shair, S., Persad, C., Heidebrink, J., et al. (2022). Laptop-Administered NIH Toolbox and Cogstate Brief Battery in Community-Dwelling Black Adults: Unexpected Pattern of Cognitive Performance between MCI and Healthy Controls. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s135561772100028x
Vancouver
Kairys A, Daugherty A, Kavcic V, Shair S, Persad C, Heidebrink J, et al. Laptop-Administered NIH Toolbox and Cogstate Brief Battery in Community-Dwelling Black Adults: Unexpected Pattern of Cognitive Performance between MCI and Healthy Controls. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2022. doi:10.1017/s135561772100028x. PMID: 33752763.
BibTeX
@article{kairys2022-33752763,
author = {Kairys, A. and Daugherty, A. and Kavcic, V. and Shair, S. and Persad, C. and Heidebrink, J. and Bhaumik, A. and Giordani, B.},
title = {{Laptop-Administered NIH Toolbox and Cogstate Brief Battery in Community-Dwelling Black Adults: Unexpected Pattern of Cognitive Performance between MCI and Healthy Controls}},
journal = {Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.1017/s135561772100028x},
pmid = {33752763},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s135561772100028x}
}
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results NIH Toolbox crystallized measures, Oral Reading and Picture Vocabulary, were the most sensitive in identifying MCI apart from HC.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS) |
| 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 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 33752763) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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 “brief”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “brief”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.