Development and Standardization of a New Cognitive Assessment Test Battery for Chinese Aphasic Patients: A Preliminary Study.
Development and Standardization of a New Cognitive Assessment Test Battery for Chinese Aphasic Patients: A Preliminary Study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.4103/0366-6999.215326
复制
发表时间：
2017-10-05
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Wang Q
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wu JB;Lyu ZH;Liu XJ;Li HP;Wang Q
非语言认知障碍已成为失语症患者的一个重要问题，但目前针对其的神经心理学认知评估测试很少。为了获得更多关于失语症患者认知障碍的信息，本研究旨在开发一种新的失语症患者认知评估测试组合——非语言认知评估（NLCA），并评估其在汉语失语症患者中的效用。 NLCA由五项非语言测试组成，可以评估失语症患者的视觉空间功能、注意力测试、记忆、推理和执行功能等五个非语言认知领域。所有测试都是在现有测试的非语言项目的基础上进行修改，并针对中国文化的特点进行了一些改变。 NLCA 在 157 名参与者（包括 57 名失语症患者、50 名轻度认知障碍 (MCI) 患者和 50 名正常对照）中进行了测试，并与其他成熟的相关神经心理学测试的可靠性、有效性和实用性进行了比较。 NLCA完全适用于MCI患者和正常对照，几乎适用于失语症患者（57/62患者，91.9%）。 MCI组、失语组、对照组NLCA评分分别为66.70±6.30、48.67±15.04、77.58±2.56，三组间差异有统计学意义（F=118.446，P<0.001）。作为内部一致性指标的 NLCA 的 Cronbach's alpha 为 0.805，重测和评分者间信度足够（分别为 r=0.977 和 r=0.970）。认知子测试与其验证工具的相关性在 0.540 至 0.670 之间（均 P < 0.05）。 Spearman相关分析表明，每个子测试本身的内部一致性系数均高于其他子测试。当选择蒙特利尔认知评估评分<26作为认知障碍的诊断标准时，对照组和MCI组所有参与者的曲线下面积为0.942（95%置信区间：0.895-0.989），最佳截止点75.00似乎提供了敏感性和特异性之间的最佳平衡。年龄（r = -0.406，P < 0.001）是NLCA的主要影响因素。 NLCA可以有效区分认知障碍患者与正常对照，是专门针对失语症患者非语言认知功能检测的可靠有效的认知评估测试组合。
Nonlinguistic cognitive impairment has become an important issue for aphasic patients, but currently there are few neuropsychological cognitive assessment tests for it. To get more information on cognitive impairment of aphasic patients, this study aimed to develop a new cognitive assessment test battery for aphasic patients, the Non-language-based Cognitive Assessment (NLCA), and evaluate its utility in Chinese-speaking patients with aphasia. The NLCA consists of five nonverbal tests, which could assess five nonlinguistic cognitive domains such as visuospatial functions, attention test, memory, reasoning, and executive functions of aphasic patients. All tests are modified from the nonverbal items of the current existed tests with some changes to the characteristics of Chinese culture. The NLCA was tested in 157 participants (including 57 aphasic patients, 50 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, and 50 normal controls), and was compared with other well-established relative neuropsychological tests on the reliability, validity, and utility. The NLCA was fully applicable in the MCI patients and the normal controls, almost working in the aphasic patients (57/62 patients, 91.9%). The NLCA scores were 66.70 ± 6.30, 48.67 ± 15.04, and 77.58 ± 2.56 for the MCI group, the aphasic group, and the control group, respectively, and a significant difference was found among three groups (F = 118.446, P < 0.001). The Cronbach's alpha of the NLCA as an index of internal consistency was 0.805, and the test-retest and interrater reliability was adequate (r=0.977 and r= 0.970, respectively). The correlations of the cognitive subtests and their validation instruments were between 0.540 and 0.670 (all P < 0.05). Spearman's correlation analysis indicated that the coefficient of internal consistency of each subtest itself was higher than other subtests. When choosing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of <26 as the diagnostic criteria of cognitive impairment, the area under the curve for all participants in the control and MCI groups was 0.942 (95% confidence interval: 0.895–0.989), and an optimal cutoff point of 75.00 seemed to provide the best balance between sensitivity and specificity. Age (r = −0.406, P < 0.001) was the main influence factor for the NLCA. The NLCA could efficiently differentiate the cognitive impairment patients from the normal controls and is a reliable and valid cognitive assessment test battery to specially find nonlinguistic cognitive function for aphasic patients.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.jalz.2011.03.005
发表时间：
2011-05
期刊：
Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association
影响因子：
--
作者：
McKhann GM;Knopman DS;Chertkow H;Hyman BT;Jack CR Jr;Kawas CH;Klunk WE;Koroshetz WJ;Manly JJ;Mayeux R;Mohs RC;Morris JC;Rossor MN;Scheltens P;Carrillo MC;Thies B;Weintraub S;Phelps CH
通讯作者：
Phelps CH
影响因子：
6.7
作者：
CRONHOLM, B;OTTOSSON, JO
通讯作者：
OTTOSSON, JO
影响因子：
--
作者：
BENTON, AL;VARNEY, NR;HAMSHER, KD
通讯作者：
HAMSHER, KD
影响因子：
1.2
作者：
Fridriksson, Julius;Nettles, Caroline;Montgomery, Allen
通讯作者：
Montgomery, Allen
影响因子：
1.7
作者：
Helm-Estabrooks, N
通讯作者：
Helm-Estabrooks, N