Assessment of cognitive functions using short repeatable neuropsychological batteries

Česká verzia

Authors: G. Věchetová ^1,2; E. Bolceková ^1,2; Z. Jarošová ³; H. Orlíková ³ ; M. Preiss ^1,4
Authors place of work: Národní ústav duševního zdraví, Klecany ¹; Neurologická klinika, 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze ²; Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Praha ³; University of New York in Prague, Praha ⁴
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2018; 81(1): 29-36
Category: Přehledný referát
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn201829

Summary

Review presents the current approach of using short repeatable neuropsychological batteries and refers to recent literature focused on this type of diagnostic process. The trend of the last decade highlights the need for the development of neuropsychological diagnostic measures, which would show good psychometric qualities and at the same time respond to the demand of a more expedient assessment and repeatability of results over time with a lower risk of the practice effect. First of all, the article proposes desirable characteristics of cognitive batteries and proposes the posibilities of interpretation of their outcomes. Secondly, the characteristics of the existing short repeatable neuropsychological batteries are discussed, based on the criteria of 1. availability of parallel versions; 2. time duration less than 45 min; 3. cognitive profile as an outcome based on the results; and 4. availability in Czech clinical or research practice. The following methods will be discussed: Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Neuropsychological Assessment Battery – Screening Module (NAB-SM), Dementia Rating Scale – 2 (DRS-2), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), and Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP)

Key words:
neuropsychology – neuropsychological assessment – cognition – RBANS – NAB-SM – DRS-2 – ADAS-Cog – MCCB – SCIP

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Zdroje

1. Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E et al. The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9(1): 63– 75. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2012.11.007.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric Association 2013.

3. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer‘s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer‘s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer‘s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7(3): 270– 279. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2011.03.008.

4. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED et al. Neuropsychological assessment. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2012.

5. Reitan R, Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: theory and clinical interpretation. 2nd ed. Tucson: Neuropsychology Press 1993.

6. Weintraub S, Salmon D, Mercaldo N et al. The Alzheimer’s Disease Centers’ Uniform Data Set (UDS): The neuropsychological test battery. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009; 23: 91– 101. doi: 10.1097/ wad.0b013e318191c7dd.

7. Strauss E, Sherman E, Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press 2006.

8. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12(3): 189– 198.

9. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53(4): 695– 699. doi: 10.1111/ j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.

10. Sattler JM. Assessment of children: cognitive applications. 4th ed. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher 2001.

11. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1994.

12. Andrews G, Peters L, Teesson M. The measurement of consumer outcomes in mental health. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Services 1994.

13. Burlingame GM, Lambert MJ, Reisinger CW et al. Pragmatics of tracking mental health outcomes in a managed care setting. J Ment Health Adm 1995; 22(3): 226– 236. doi: 10.1007/ bf02521118.

14. Randolph C. RBANS Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation 1998.

15. Preiss M, Kučerová H et al. Neuropsychologie v psychiatrii. Praha: Grada 2006.

16. Beatty WW. RBANS analysis of verbal memory in multiple sclerosis. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2004; 19(6): 825– 834. doi: 10.1016/ j.acn.2003.12.001.

17. Aupperle RL, Beatty WW, Shelton F et al. Three screening batteries to detect cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2002; 8(5): 382– 389. doi: 10.1191/ 1352458502ms832oa.

18. Larson EB, Kirschner K, Bode R et al. Construct and predictive validity of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in the evaluation of stroke patients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005; 27(1): 16– 32. doi: 10.1080/ 138033990513564.

19. Mooney S, Hassanein TI, Hilsabeck RC et al. Utility of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) in patients with end-stage liver disease awaiting liver transplant. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2007; 22(2): 175– 186. doi: 10.1016/ j.acn.2006.12.005.

20. Hobart MP, Goldberg R, Bartko JJ et al. Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status as a screening test in schizophrenia: II. convergent/ discriminant validity and diagnostic group comparisons. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156(12): 1951– 1957. doi: 10.1176/ ajp.156.12.1951.

21. Karantzoulis S, Novitski J, Gold M et al. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): utility in detection and characterization of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer‘s disease. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2013; 28(8): 837– 844. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ act057.

22. Krámská L, Preiss M. Opakovatelná baterie pro vyšetření neuropsychologického stavu – RBANS: český překlad a úprava [nepublikovaný rukopis]. Pearson. 2010.

23. Stern RA, White T. Neuropsychological Assessment Battery: psychometric and technical manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources 2003.

24. Cannizzaro D, Elliott J, Stohl M et al. Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module (S-NAB): performance in treatment-seeking cocaine users. Am JDrug Alcohol Abuse 2014; 40(6): 476– 483. doi: 10.3109/ 00952990.2014.916718.

25. Temple RO, Zgaljardic DJ, Abreu BC et al. Ecological validity of the neuropsychological assessment battery screening module in post-acute brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Inj 2009; 23(1): 45– 50. doi: 10.1080/ 02699050802590361.

26. Zgaljardic DJ, Temple RO. Reliability and validity of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery-Screening Module (NAB-SM) in a sample of patients with moderate-to-severe acquired brain injury. Appl Neuropsychol 2010; 17(1): 27– 36. doi: 10.1080/ 09084280903297909.

27. Daniels B. The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB): a test of criterion validity within an epilepsy population. Diss. Gainesville: University of Florida 2011.

28. Jurica SJ, Leitten CL, Mattis S. Dementia Rating Scale: Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources 2001.

29. Bezdicek O, Michalec J, Nikolai T et al. Clinical validity of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in differentiating mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson‘s disease and normative data. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2015; 39(5– 6): 303– 311. doi: 10.1159/ 000375365.

30. Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141(11): 1356– 1364. doi: 10.1176/ ajp.141.11.1356.

31. Cano SJ, Posner HB, Moline ML et al. The ADAS-cogin Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: psychometric evaluation of the sum and its parts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010; 81(12): 1363– 1368. doi: 10.1136/ jnnp.2009.204008.

32. Yavorsky C, DiClemente G, Opler M et al. Establishing threshold scores and profiles of cognitive impairment for the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) for patients with higher dementia (MMSE<12), Alzheimer’s disease and probable MCI. Alzheimers Dement 2012; 8 (4 Suppl): P415– P416. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2012.05.2053.

33. Zec RF, Landreth ES, Vicari SK et al. Alzheimer disease assessment scale: useful for both early detection and staging of dementia of the Alzheimer type. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1992; 6(2): 89– 102. doi: 10.1097/ 00002093-199206020-00004.

34. Nuechterlein KH, Green MF, Kern RS et al. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 203– 213. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010042.

35. Bezdíček O, Nikolai T, Michalec J et al. Komplexní posouzení kognitivních funkcí u nemocných schizofrenií – česká verze standardizovaného nástroje MATRICS. Ceska Slov Psychiat 2015; 111(2): 79– 86.

36. Wilde M. The validity of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in acute stroke. Clin Neuropsychol 2006; 20(4): 702– 715. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040500246901.

37. Bolceková E. Profily kognitivního deficitu a použití krátké neuropsychologické baterie u různých typů demence [dizertační práce]. Praha 2016. Dostupné z URL: http: / / hdl.handle.net/ 20.500.11956/ 81625.

38. Brodská V. Ověření psychometrických charakteristik české verze RBANS [rigorózní práce]. Praha 2016. Dostupné z URL: http: / / hdl.handle.net/ 20.500.11956/ 84623.

39. Mattis S. Dementia Rating Scale: Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources 1988.

40. Podhorna J, Krahnke T, Shear M et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale– cognitive subscale variants in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease: change over time and the effect of enrichment strategies. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8(1): 8. doi: 10.1186/ s13195-016-0170-5.

41. Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC et al. Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 (Suppl 2): S13– S21. doi: 10.1097/ 00002093-199700112-00003.

42. Lowe AD, Balsis S, Benge JF et al. Adding delayed recall to the ADAS-cog improves measurement precision in mild Alzheimer’s disease: implications for predicting instrumental activities of daily living. Psychol Assess 2015; 27(4): 1234– 1240. doi: 10.1037/ pas0000133.

43. Standish TI, Molloy DW, Bédard M et al. Improvedreliability of the Standardized Alzheimer‘s DiseaseAssessment Scale (SADAS) compared with the Alzheimer‘s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS). J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44(6): 712– 716. doi: 10.1111/ j.15325415.1996.tb01838.x.

44. Talwalker S, Overall JE, Srirama MK et al. Cardinal features of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer‘s disease: a factor-analytic study of the Alzheimer‘s Disease Assessment Scale. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1996; 9(1): 39– 46. doi: 10.1177/ 089198879600900107.

45. Kern RS, Nuechterlein KH, Green MF et al. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 2: co-norming and standardization. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 214– 220. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010043.

46. Green MF, Nuechterlein KH, Kern RS et al. Functional co-primary measures for clinical trials in schizophrenia: results from the MATRICS Psychometric and Standardization Study. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 221– 228. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010089.

47. Preiss J, Preiss M. Assessing neuropsychological impairment using Reitan and Wolfson’s Screening Battery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2013; 28(5): 492– 498. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ act027.

48. Kulišťák P. Cognistat – záznamový arch a příručka. Praha: Katedra neurologie IPVZ 1996.

49. Keefe RS, Goldberg TE, Harvey PD et al. The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia: reliability, sensitivity, and comparison with a standard neurocognitive battery. Schizophr Res 2004; 68(2– 3): 283– 297. doi: 10.1016/ j.schres.2003.09.011.

50. Rao SM, the Cognitive Function Study Group of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. A manual for the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests in multiple sclerosis. Milwaukee: Medical College of Wisconsin 1990.

51. Purdon SE. The Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP): Instructions and three alternate forms. Edmonton: PNL Inc. 2005.

52. Rojo E, Pino O, Guilera G et al. Neurocognitive diagnosis and cut-off scores of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-S). Schizophr Res 2010; 116(2– 3): 243– 251. doi: 0.1016/ j.schres.2009.08.005.

53. Gómez-Benito J, Guilera G, Pino O et al. Comparing neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder using the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry Scale. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2014; 14(2): 128−136. doi: 10.1016/ s1697-2600(14)70046-8.

54. Tourjman SV, Beauchamp MH, Djouini A et al. French validation of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-F). Open J Psychiatr 2016; 6(1): 107– 118. doi: 10.4236/ ojpsych.2016.61013.

55. Hirabayashi E, Purdon SE, Masuya J et al. The Japanese version of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry: a preliminary study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2006; 21(4): A10.

56. Ott CV, Bjertrup AJ, Jensen JH et al. Screening for cognitive dysfunction in unipolar depression: validation and evaluation of objective and subjective tools. J Affect Disord 2016; 190: 607– 615. doi: 10.1016/ j.jad.2015.10.059.

57. Czekaj A, Uhlmann C, Flammer E et al. Klinische Praktikabilität der „Erfassung kognitiver Beeinträchtigung“ bei Patienten der Allgemeinpsychiatrie (Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry/ SCIP). In: Forschung und Lehre Jahresbericht. Bad Schussenried: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie 2012.

58. Preiss M, Bartoš A, Čermáková R et al. Neuropsychologická baterie Psychiatrického centra Praha: Klinické vyšetření základních kognitivních funkcí. 3. vyd. Praha: Psychiatrické centrum Praha 2012.

59. Štěpánková H, Nikolai T, Lukavský J et al. Mini-Mental State Examination – česká normativní studie. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/ 111(1): 57– 63.