Practice effects in mild cognitive impairment: A validation of Calamia et al. (2012).
Practice effects in mild cognitive impairment: A validation of Calamia et al. (2012).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13854046.2020.1781933
复制
发表时间：
2022-04
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hammers DB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Duff K;Hammers DB
在一项荟萃分析中，研究了练习对重复神经心理学测试的影响，提供了在一系列认知领域预测健康和临床样本中练习效果的信息。然而，这些估计数尚未得到验证。目前的研究使用这些预测估计计算来预测一年内对93名患有遗忘型轻度认知障碍的老年人进行一系列简短的神经心理学测试的随访分数。将预测的随访评分与观察到的随访评分进行比较。使用Calamia等人模型的截距、年龄、复检间隔、临床状态和特定认知测试，在该认知组合中观察到的7个随访评分中，有3个显著低于Calamia等人预测的随访评分。个体参与者观察到的和预测的随访分数之间的差异更显着。例如，在霍普金斯言语学习测试的延迟回忆中，40%的样本的Calamia等人预测的分数比他们观察到的分数高出一个或多个标准差。这些差异在Calamia等人没有的测试中最为显著。的认知电池，这表明荟萃分析结果可能无法推广到其他测试。虽然Calamia等人提供了一种预测练习效果和随访评分的方法，但这些结果在MCI中使用时需要谨慎，特别是在未纳入其荟萃分析的认知测试中。
In a meta-analysis examining practice effects on repeated neuropsychological testing, provided information to predict practice effects in healthy and clinical samples across a range of cognitive domains. However, these estimates have not been validated. The current study used these prediction estimate calculations to predict follow-up scores across one year on a brief battery of neuropsychological tests in a sample of 93 older adults with amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment. The predicted follow-up scores were compared to observed follow-up scores. Using Calamia et al. model’s intercept, age, retest interval, clinical status, and specific cognitive tests, 3 of the 7 observed follow-up scores in this cognitive battery were significantly lower than the Calamia et al. predicted follow-up scores. Differences between individual participants’ observed and predicted follow-up scores were more striking. For example, on Delayed Recall of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised, 40% of the sample had Calamia et al. predicted scores that were one or more standard deviations above their observed scores. These differences were most notable on tests that were not in Calamia et al.’s cognitive battery, suggesting the meta-analysis results may not generalize as well to other tests. Although Calamia et al. provided a method for predicting practice effects and follow-up scores, these results raise caution when using them in MCI, especially on cognitive tests that were not in their meta-analysis.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Duff, Kevin;Lyketsos, Constantine G.;McCaffrey, Robert J.
通讯作者：
McCaffrey, Robert J.
影响因子：
7
作者：
Duff, Kevin;Beglinger, Leigh J.;Paulsen, Jane S.
通讯作者：
Paulsen, Jane S.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Rapport, LJ;Brines, DB;Theisen, ME
通讯作者：
Theisen, ME
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Duff, Kevin;Beglinger, Leigh J.;Paulsen, Jane S.
通讯作者：
Paulsen, Jane S.
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Beglinger, LJ;Gaydos, B;Siemers, ER
通讯作者：
Siemers, ER