Token Test – Validation Study in Older Czech Adults and Patients with Neurodegenerative Diseases

Česká verzia

Authors: S. Brustmannová ¹; L. Anderkova ¹; I. Rektorová ^1,2; Z. Balážová ¹; L. Brabenec ¹; N. Elfmarková--Němcová ¹
Authors place of work: Výzkumná skupina Aplikované neurovědy, CEITEC – Středoevropský technologický institut, MU, Brno ¹; 1. neurologická klinika LF MU a FN u sv. Anny v Brně ²
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2017; 80/113(3): 300-306
Category: Original Paper
doi: https://doi.org/10.14735/amcsnn2017300

Summary

Aim:
The study examines psychometric properties of the Czech version of the Token Test (TT) on a population of Czech seniors and individuals with neurodegenerative brain diseases.

Participants and methods:
The study included 96 individuals (mean age 67.7 years), of whom 43 were healthy controls (HC), 23 had incipient Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD + MCI), and 30 had Parkinson’s disease (PD).

Results:
Significant differences in TT performance were found between the sample groups HC and AD + MCI (p < 0.001) and between PD and AD + MCI (p < 0.001). The highest convergent validity of TT was with the immediate reproduction of the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ρ = 0.524; p < 0.001), the Boston Naming Test (ρ = 0.498; p < 0.001) and the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (ρ = 0.486; p <0.001). ROC analysis showed TT to discriminate with high precision for AD + MCI (AUC = 0.826), not for PN (AUC = 0.826).

Conclusion:
TT does not selectively evaluate the language function as such but it is selective for neurogenic communication disorders in patients with neurodegenerative brain disease.

Key words:
Token Test – reliability and validity – Alzheimer’s disease – Parkinson’s disease – mild cognitive impairment

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. Gallardo G, Guàrdia J, Villaseñor T, et al. Psychometric data for the Revised Token Test in normally developing Mexican children ages 4– 12 years. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2011;26(3):225– 34. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ acr018.

2. De Renzi E, Faglioni P. Normative data and screening power of a shortened version of the Token Test. Cortex 1978;14(1):41– 9.

3. Kitson D, Vance B, Blosser J. Comparison of the TokenTest of language development and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Revised. Percept Mot Skills 1985;61(2):532– 4.

4. Smith S, Mann V, Shankweiler D. Spoken sentence comprehension by good and poor readers: a study with the Token Test. Cortex 1986;22(4):627– 32.

5. Spreen O, Strauss E. A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary: administration, norms, and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2006.

6. Gutbrod K, Mager B, Meier E, et al. Cognitive processing of tokens and their description in aphasia. Brain Lang 1985;25(1):37– 51.

7. Lezak M. Neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press 2004.

8. Orgass B, Poeck K. Clinical validation of a new test for aphasia: an experimental study on the Token Test: an experimental study on the Token Test. Cortex 1966; 2(2):222– 43.

9. Peña-Casanova J, Quiñones-Úbeda S, Gramunt-Fombuena N, et al. Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): norms for Boston naming test and token test. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2009;24(4):343– 54.

10. Bolčeková E, Preiss M, Krejčová L. Token Test pro děti a dospělé. Praha: Propsyco 2015.

11. Fontanari J. The “Token Test“: elegance and conciseness in the evaluation of comprehension in aphasic patients: validation of the reduced version of DeRenzi to the Portuguese. Neurobiologia 1989;52(3):177– 218.

12. Spellacy F, Spreen O. A short form of the Token Test. Cortex 1969;5(4):390– 7.

13. Yang L, Unverzagt F, Jin Y, et al. Normative data for neuropsychological tests in a rural elderly Chinese cohort. Clin Neuropsychol 2012;26(4):641– 53.

14. Kosciesza M, Krasowicz G. Polish adaptation of the “Token Test“ for children and its practical applications. Psychologia Wychowawcza 1995;38(4):350– 8.

15. Preiss M, Bartoš A, Čermáková R. Neuropsychologická baterie Psychiatrického centra Praha: klinické vyšetření základních kognitivních funkcí. 3. přeprac. vyd.. Praha: Psychiatrické centrum 2012.

16. Hughes A, Daniel S, Kilford L, et al. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson‘s disease: a clinico-pathological study of 100 cases. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1992;55(3):181– 4.

17. Litvan I, Goldman J, Tröster A, et al. Diagnostic criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson‘s disease: Movement Disorder Society Task Force guidelines. Mov Disord 2012;27(3):349– 56. doi: 10.1002/ mds.24893.

18. McKhann G, Knopman D, Chertkow H, et al. The diag-nosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer‘s disease. Alzheimera Dement 2011;7(3):263– 9. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2011.03.005.

19. Albert M, DeKosky S, 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. Alzheimera Dement 2011;7(3):270– 9. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2011.03.008.

20. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12(3):189– 98.

21. Warrington E, James M. The visual object and space perception battery. Thames Valley: Test Company Bury St Edmunds 1991.

22. Meyers J, Meyers K. Rey Complex Figure Test and recognition trial professional manual. Psychological Assess-ment Resources 1995.

23. Technická příručka: WAIS III, WMS III. Praha: Testcentrum 1999.

24. Bezdicek O, Lukavsky J, Stepankova H, et al. The Prague Stroop Test: Normative standards in older Czech adults and discriminative validity for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s disease. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2015;37(8):794– 807. doi: 10.1080/ 13803395.2015.1057106.

25. Preiss M, Preiss J, Panamá J. Trail Making test pro děti a dospělé. Manuál. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika 1997.

26. Košťálová M, Bártková E, Šajgalíková K, et al. A standardization study of the Czech version of the Mississippi Aphasia Screening Test (MASTcz) in stroke patients and control subjects. Brain Inj 2008;22(10):793– 801. doi: 10.1080/ 02699050802372190.

27. Williams B, Mack W, Henderson V. Boston naming test in Alzheimer‘s disease. Neuropsychologia 1989;27(8):1073– 9.

28. De Renzi E, Faglioni P. Normative data and screening power of a shortened version of the Token Test. Cortex 1978;14(1):41– 9.

29. Bartoš A, Martínek P, Bezdíček O, et al. Dotazník funkčního stavu FAQ-CZ– česká verze pro zhodnocení každodenních aktivit pacientů s Alzheimerovou nemocí. Psychiat Praxi 2008;9(1):31– 4.

30. Yesavage J, Sheikh J. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) recent evidence and development of a shorter violence. Clin Gerontology 1986;5(1– 2):165– 73.

31. Aarsland D, Bronnick K, Williams-Gray C, et al. Mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease: a multicenter pooled analysis. Neurology 2010;75(12):1062– 9. doi: 10.1212/ WNL.0b013e3181f39d0e.

32. Turkyılmaz M, Belgin E. Reliability, Validity, and Adaptation of Computerized Revised Token Test in Normal Subjects. Int Adv Otol 2012;8(1):103– 12.

33. Kim H, Sung J, Kim J, et al. Response time measurements in the iOS app-based Token Test, the BriefToken Test in the elderly. Geriatr Gerontology Int 2014; 14(4):969– 74. doi: 10.1111/ ggi.12182.

34. Lucas J, Ivnik R, Smith G, et al. Mayo‘s older african americans normative studies: norms for boston naming test, controlled oral word association, category fluency, animal naming, token test, wrat-3 reading, trail making test, stroop test, and judgment of line orientation. Clin Neuropsychol 2005;19(2):243– 69.

35. Sakellaridou E, Wersching H, Reinholz J, et al. Comprehension of complex instructions deteriorates with age and vascular morbidity. Age 2011;33(1):101– 6. doi: 10.1007/ s11357-010-9161-9.

36. Steinberg B, Bieliauskas L, Smith G, et al. Mayo‘s older Americans normative studies: age-and IQ-adjusted norms for the trail-making test, the stroop test, and MAE controlled oral word association test. Clin Neuropsychol 2005;19(3– 4): 329– 77.

37. Schneider B, Daneman M, Pichora-Fuller M. Listening in aging adults: from discourse comprehension to psychoacoustics. Can J Exp Psychol 2002;56(3):139.

38. Brewster P, Tuokko H, MacDonald S. Measurement equivalence of neuropsychological tests across education levels in older adults. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2014;36(10):1042– 54. doi: 10.1080/ 13803395.2014.967661.

39. Swihart A, Panisset M, Becker J, et al. Token Test: Validity and diagnostic power in Alzheimer‘s disease. Dev Neuropsychol 1989;5(1):69– 78.

40. Maseda A, Lodeiro-Fernández L, Lorenzo-López L, et al. Verbal fluency, naming and verbal comprehension: three aspects of language as predictors of cognitive impairment: three aspects of language as predictors of cognitive impairment. Aging Ment Health 2014;18(8):1037– 45. doi: 10.1080/ 13607863.2014.908457.

41. Morley G, Lundgren S, Haxby J. Comparison and clinical applicability of auditory comprehension scores on the behavioral Neurology deficit evaluation, Boston diagnostic aphasia examination, porch index of communicative ability and token test. J Clinical Exp Neuropsychol 1979;1(3):249– 58.