Premium
P4‐105: Development of the korean adult reading test (KART) to estimate premorbid intelligence in dementia
Author(s) -
Han Ji Young,
Seo Eun Hyun,
Jun Jong Ho,
Yi Dahyun,
Sohn Bo Kyung,
Choe Young Min,
Byun Min Soo,
Woo Jong Inn,
Lee Dong Young
Publication year - 2015
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.2015.06.1811
Subject(s) - cronbach's alpha , wechsler adult intelligence scale , psychology , pearson product moment correlation coefficient , intraclass correlation , dementia , boston naming test , test (biology) , spelling , reliability (semiconductor) , audiology , clinical psychology , developmental psychology , cognition , neuropsychology , statistics , psychometrics , psychiatry , medicine , mathematics , linguistics , philosophy , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , biology , paleontology , disease
of AD by measuring memory binding. Herein, we assess the test-retest reliability and the discriminative validity of indices of memory binding for amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and dementia in a community based sample. Methods: The MBT test was administered to 333 older adults (21 dementia cases, 31 aMCI cases, 33 non-amnestic MCI (naMCI) cases and 248 control subjects) and four key measures were collected (N1: The number of cued recalled items from first list, range 0 16; N2: The number of cued recalled items from second list, range 0 16; Npairs: The number of pairs correctly recalled, range 0 16; Nitem@pair: The number of items recalled in paired condition, range 0 32). These measures were compared in terms of sensitivity and specificity for identifying aMCI and dementia. McNemar’s test was used to compare specificities when the sensitivities were comparable. Reliability was computed as Pearson’s correlation between baseline and Year-1 scores for those subjects whose global cognitive function remained stable measured by the Blessed Information Memory Concentration test (BIMC). Results: The optimal cut-score of Nitem@pair 22 achieves sensitivity 0.74 and specificity 0.72 to differentiate aMCI from controls and naMCI, and sensitivity 0.84 and specificity 0.72 to differentiate aMCI or dementia from controls and naMCI. The optimal cut-score of Nitem@pair ;19 achieves sensitivity 1.00 and specificity 0.79 to differentiate dementia cases from the rest. At the sensitivities achieved by these optimal cut-scores, Nitem@pair achieves significantly better specificities than N1, N2, and Npairs (McNemar’s p<0.05). Among 203 subjects with an absolute change in BIMC of 3 the correlation between baseline and Year-1 Nitem@pair was 0.82. Conclusions: The measure Nitem@pair achieves better diagnostic validity than the other key MBTmeasures in identifying aMCI and dementia, which supports the hypothesis that measure of memory binding may be sensitive to early AD. We recommend using the empirical cut-score of 22 for detecting aMCI or dementia and 19 for detecting dementia alone. The MBT test also shows excellent test-retest reliability.