Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The impact of presentation modality on cognitive test performance for adults with hearing loss
Goodwin MV, Hogervorst E, Maidment DW.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2021-12-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating hearing loss in middle-aged and older adults is independently associated with an increased risk of developing cognitive-decline and dementia. Verbal memory is one of the most common functions to decline early in Alzheimer's disease, the most common form of dementia Whilst the exact mechanisms underlying this association remain unclear, poorer test performance may reflect an overarching sensory deficit, as, for instance, most verbal memory tests are predominantly delivered auditorily. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether different modes of presentation (i.e., visual, or auditory) influence verbal memory screening test performance in those who failed a hearing screener. Method The study was conducted via online video-conferencing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants (N= 63) completed a validated hearing screener, which was a digit-in-noise test delivered via the hearWHO smartphone application. Three cognitive tests were also administered: (1) the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), presented auditorily; (2) the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT), presented visually; and (3) a verbal fluency task as a control. All tests have been used as dementia screening tests. Result Separate ANCOVAs revealed that, when controlling for age, gender, and education level, adults who failed the hearing screener performed more poorly on the TICS-M compared to individuals who passed (p<.001). No differences between hearing groups were found for the other cognitive tests administered (p≥ .132). Conclusion This study provides support for the notion that the presentation mode of cognitive tests may account for some of the deficits observed in older adults with hearing loss. As such, researchers and clinicians should be mindful of the sensory deficits experienced by individuals when interpreting cognitive test performance, to avoid the overestimation of cognitive deficits and dementia in adults with hearing loss.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Goodwin, M. V., Hogervorst, E., & Maidment, D. W. (2021). The impact of presentation modality on cognitive test performance for adults with hearing loss. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.058571
Vancouver
Goodwin MV, Hogervorst E, Maidment DW. The impact of presentation modality on cognitive test performance for adults with hearing loss. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2021. doi:10.1002/alz.058571. PMID: 34971091.
BibTeX
@article{goodwin2021-34971091,
author = {Goodwin, M. V. and Hogervorst, E. and Maidment, D. W.},
title = {{The impact of presentation modality on cognitive test performance for adults with hearing loss}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/alz.058571},
pmid = {34971091},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.058571}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Background There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating hearing loss in middle-aged and older adults is independently associated with an increased risk of developing cognitive-decline and dementia.
- Result Separate ANCOVAs revealed that, when controlling for age, gender, and education level, adults who failed the hearing screener performed more poorly on the TICS-M compared to individuals who passed (p<.001).
Study details
- Participants63
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 63 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 34971091) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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 in Cognitive tests and assessment
109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.