Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Measuring longitudinal cognition: Individual tests versus composites
Jonaitis EM, Koscik RL, Clark LR, Ma Y, Betthauser TJ, Berman SE, Allison SL, Mueller KD et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019-01-11
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
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 and their constituent scores. For a subset with cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid positron emission tomography measures, we examined how Aβ modified cognitive trajectories. Results Global and theoretically derived composites exhibited lower intraindividual variability and stronger age × Aβ interactions than did empirically derived composites or raw scores from single tests. For example, the theoretical executive function outperformed other executive function scores on both metrics. Discussion These results reinforce the need for careful selection of cognitive outcomes in study design, and support the emerging consensus favoring composites over single-test measures.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Jonaitis, E. M., Koscik, R. L., Clark, L. R., Ma, Y., Betthauser, T. J., Berman, S. E., et al. (2019). Measuring longitudinal cognition: Individual tests versus composites. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2018.11.006
Vancouver
Jonaitis EM, Koscik RL, Clark LR, Ma Y, Betthauser TJ, Berman SE, et al. Measuring longitudinal cognition: Individual tests versus composites. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2019. doi:10.1016/j.dadm.2018.11.006. PMID: 31673596.
BibTeX
@article{jonaitis2019-31673596,
author = {Jonaitis, E. M. and Koscik, R. L. and Clark, L. R. and Ma, Y. and Betthauser, T. J. and Berman, S. E. and Allison, S. L. and Mueller, K. D. and others},
title = {{Measuring longitudinal cognition: Individual tests versus composites}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1016/j.dadm.2018.11.006},
pmid = {31673596},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2018.11.006}
}
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 Global and theoretically derived composites exhibited lower intraindividual variability and stronger age × Aβ interactions than did empirically derived composites or raw scores from single tests.
- Discussion These results reinforce the need for careful selection of cognitive outcomes in study design, and support the emerging consensus favoring composites over single-test measures.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 60/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 35 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 60 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 31673596) |
| 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 Brain scans and imaging
Also tagged “composite”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “composite”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.