Premium
P3‐115: Reitan trail making test versus color trails test performance in American Indians
Author(s) -
Connor Donald J.,
Belden Christine M.,
Sabbagh Marwan N.,
Silverberg Nina
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.05.1680
Subject(s) - trail making test , boston naming test , test (biology) , population , psychology , normative , neuropsychological test , neuropsychology , context (archaeology) , cognition , medicine , clinical psychology , demography , gerontology , audiology , psychiatry , geography , philosophy , environmental health , archaeology , epistemology , sociology , biology , paleontology
experience from 1 12 years of administering the instrument (5.94 3.64 yrs). Number of total administrations varied from 40 to greater than 1000 (296 288). The number of different protocols in which they used the ADAS-Cog ranged from 3 20 (10.6 5) with most raters having a mix of pharmaceutical industry sponsored and government sponsored (ADCS) protocols. Education background also varied widely from 14 20 years of education. Significant variability was reported on each of the 22 items queried. Depending on the item, from 19% to 63% of participants reported that they had seen or been trained differently on different protocols. Even in cases where the majority of raters reported they had been trained only one way to administer an item (e.g. 62% indicated they had only been taught one way to respond to an error in the Command section), half of them were taught one way (readminister the item) and the other half were taught the other way (count as error, do not readminister). Conclusions: There is significant variability in the way the ADAS-Cog is taught to be administered and scored between different clinical trials. All raters surveyed indicated some conflicting training. This may lead to reduced reliability and therefore reduced sensitivity of the instrument, and decreases the validity of comparisons between clinical trials.