Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity of a short computerized assessment battery for moderate cognitive impairment and dementia
Dwolatzky T, Dimant L, Simon ES, Doniger GM.. International psychogeriatrics, 2010-06-03
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Computerized cognitive assessment tools have been developed to make precise neuropsychological assessment readily available to clinicians. Mindstreams batteries for mild impairment have been validated previously. We examined the validity of a Mindstreams battery designed specifically for evaluating those with moderate cognitive impairment. Methods 170 participants over the age of 60 years performed the computerized battery in addition to standard clinical evaluation. The battery consists of six technician-administered tests and one patient-administered interactive test sampling the cognitive domains of orientation (to time and place), memory, executive function, visual spatial processing, and verbal function. Staging was according to the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) on the basis of clinical data but independent of computerized cognitive testing results, thus serving as the gold standard for evaluating the discriminant validity of the computerized measures. Results Seven participants received a global CDR score of 0 (not impaired), 76 were staged as CDR 0.5 (very mildly impaired), 58 as CDR 1 (mildly impaired), 26 as CDR 2 (moderately impaired), and 3 as CDR 3 (severely impaired). Mindstreams Global Score performance was significantly different across CDR groups (p < 0.001), reflecting poorer overall battery performance for those with greater impairment. This was also true for the domain summary scores, with Executive Function (d = 0.67) and Memory (d = 0.65) distinguishing best between CDR 0.5 and 1, and Orientation best differentiating among CDR 1 and 2 (d = 1.20). Conclusions The Mindstreams battery for moderate impairment differentiates among varying degrees of cognitive impairment in older adults, providing detailed and distinct cognitive profiles.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Dwolatzky, T., Dimant, L., Simon, E. S., & Doniger, G. M. (2010). Validity of a short computerized assessment battery for moderate cognitive impairment and dementia. International psychogeriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610210000621
Vancouver
Dwolatzky T, Dimant L, Simon ES, Doniger GM. Validity of a short computerized assessment battery for moderate cognitive impairment and dementia. International psychogeriatrics. 2010. doi:10.1017/s1041610210000621. PMID: 20519066.
BibTeX
@article{dwolatzky2010-20519066,
author = {Dwolatzky, T. and Dimant, L. and Simon, E. S. and Doniger, G. M.},
title = {{Validity of a short computerized assessment battery for moderate cognitive impairment and dementia}},
journal = {International psychogeriatrics},
year = {2010},
doi = {10.1017/s1041610210000621},
pmid = {20519066},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610210000621}
}
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
- Staging was according to the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) on the basis of clinical data but independent of computerized cognitive testing results, thus serving as the gold standard for evaluating the discriminant validity of the computerized measures.
- Results Seven participants received a global CDR score of 0 (not impaired), 76 were staged as CDR 0.5 (very mildly impaired), 58 as CDR 1 (mildly impaired), 26 as CDR 2 (moderately impaired), and 3 as CDR 3 (severely impaired).
- Mindstreams Global Score performance was significantly different across CDR groups (p < 0.001), reflecting poorer overall battery performance for those with greater impairment.
Study details
- Participants170
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International psychogeriatrics) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2010 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 170 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 20519066) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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 “computerized”
239 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 239 tagged studies.