Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Subjective Versus Objective Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Primary Care
Hess C, Levy B, Hashmi AZ, Hogan J, Greenspan S, Elber A, Falcon K, Driscoll DF.. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, 2020-05-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Purpose This study examined the clinical utility of highly efficient subjective and objective screens of cognitive impairment. Method Participants ( N = 124, age ≥ 65, mean = 73.59, SD = 6.26) completed a 2-item questionnaire of subjective memory functioning, a brief computerized cognitive test, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Next, participants were assigned to 1 of 4 conditions, based on their subjective (low/high) and objective (impaired/unimpaired) levels of cognitive functioning. Further analysis divided the sample into age-based groups (ie, age < 75, age ≥ 75). Results The proportion of participants in the impaired subsample (ie, MoCA < 26), who reported a high level of subjective concern about their memory, was low (ie, 0.15). Among unimpaired participants, analysis detected significant group differences across subjective memory levels ( P < .0003) and age ( P < .005) categories on one of the three tasks of the computerized test (ie, cognitive control). In contrast, the MoCA offered no differentiation between these groups. Conclusion Screening protocols in which cognitive testing is administered subsequent to patient complaint are prone to underdiagnosis. In addition, common dementia screens are insensitive to subjective deficits and healthy cognitive aging. Therefore, they may lead to dismissing valid concerns that deserve preventive attention. Primary care needs efficient screening tools that are sensitive to prodromal decline.
Key findings
- Results The proportion of participants in the impaired subsample (ie, MoCA < 26), who reported a high level of subjective concern about their memory, was low (ie, 0.15).
- Among unimpaired participants, analysis detected significant group differences across subjective memory levels ( P < .0003) and age ( P < .005) categories on one of the three tasks of the computerized test (ie, cognitive control).
Study details
- Participants124
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 124 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 32430373) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Hess, C., Levy, B., Hashmi, A. Z., Hogan, J., Greenspan, S., Elber, A., et al. (2020). Subjective Versus Objective Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Primary Care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190265
Vancouver
Hess C, Levy B, Hashmi AZ, Hogan J, Greenspan S, Elber A, et al. Subjective Versus Objective Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Primary Care. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. 2020. doi:10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190265. PMID: 32430373.
BibTeX
@article{hess2020-32430373,
author = {Hess, C. and Levy, B. and Hashmi, A. Z. and Hogan, J. and Greenspan, S. and Elber, A. and Falcon, K. and Driscoll, D. F.},
title = {{Subjective Versus Objective Assessment of Cognitive Functioning in Primary Care}},
journal = {Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190265},
pmid = {32430373},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190265}
}