scholarly journals The Screening Utility and Ecological Validity of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment Subtest in Older Adults with and without Dementia

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 1156-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E Kenney ◽  
Seth A Margolis ◽  
Jennifer D Davis ◽  
Geoffrey Tremont

Abstract Objective The Neuropsychological Assessment Battery Bill Payment subtest has shown strong diagnostic accuracy in dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) versus non-AD. Its relationship to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or all-cause dementia has not been fully examined nor has its ecological validity as a proxy of financial independence. Method We describe 270 women (63%) and men (age = 72 ± 8.39) who completed Bill Payment during outpatient neuropsychological evaluation. Seventy-one were cognitively normal (CN), 160 had MCI, and 39 had Dementia. Two hundred fourteen were independent in money management, 31 were assisted (had oversight/some help), and 25 were dependent (relied on others). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves tested Bill Payment’s utility as a dementia screen. Kruskal–Wallis tests examined whether Bill Payment differed by levels of financial independence. Results At a cutoff of 17, Bill Payment had strong sensitivity (0.87) and specificity (0.80) for dementia versus CN cases. A cutoff of 15 distinguished dementia from MCI (Sn = 0.64, Sp = 0.85), whereas a cutoff of 16 distinguished dementia from functionally unimpaired cases (MCI + CN) with greater sensitivity and similar specificity (Sn = 0.74, Sp = 0.81). Sensitivity attenuated in MCI versus CN cases (Sn = 0.46, Sp = 0.83). Those who were independent in money management had higher scores than assisted and dependent cases (p ≤ 0.046). Assisted and dependent cases were no different (p > 0.05). Conclusions Bill Payment is a valid screen of all-cause dementia. Lower Bill Payment scores may mark subtle functional decline beyond cognitive impairment alone. Specifically, results provide preliminary evidence of Bill Payment’s ecological validity as a measure related to financial independence. It may prove useful when impaired financial abilities are suspected but unreported.

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 348-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derya Guner ◽  
Bedile Irem Tiftikcioglu ◽  
Nilgun Tuncay ◽  
Yasar Zorlu

Cognitive dysfunction can emerge during the clinical course of Parkinson’s disease (PD) even beginning in early stages, which requires extended neuropsychological tests for diagnosis. There is need for rapid, feasible, and practical tests in clinical practice to diagnose and monitor the patients without causing any discomfort. We investigated the utility of quantitative analysis of digital EEG (qEEG) for diagnosing subtle cognitive impairment in PD patients without evident cognitive deficits (ie, “normal cognition”). We enrolled 45 patients with PD and age- matched 39 healthy controls in the study. All participants had Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score greater than 25. qEEG analysis and extensive neuropsychological assessment battery were applied to all participants. Test scores for frontal executive functions, verbal memory processes, attention span, and visuospatial functions were significantly lower than healthy controls ( P < .01). qEEG analysis revealed a significant increase in delta, theta, and beta frequencies, and decrease in alpha frequency band in cerebral bioelectrical activity in patient group. In addition, power spectral ratios ([alpha + beta] / [delta + theta]) in frontal, central, temporal, parietal, and occipital regions were significantly decreased in patients compared with the controls. The slowing in EEG was moderately correlated with MMSE scores ( r = 0.411-0.593; P < .01). However, qEEG analysis and extensive neuropsychological assessment battery were only in weak correlation ( r = 0.230-0.486; P < .05). In conclusion, qEEG analysis could increase the diagnostic power in detecting subtle cognitive impairment in PD patients without evident cognitive deficit, perhaps years before the clinical onset of dementia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1247-1247
Author(s):  
Sierra Iwanicki ◽  
David M Lechuga ◽  
Lisa Fasnacht-Hill

Abstract Objective In June 2020, the American Psychological Association acknowledged that use of personal protective equipment (PPE) was key to psychologists safely resuming in-person services. However, there is no empirical evidence on the impact of PPE in delivering the provision of essential mental health services. Of particular concern is the unprecedented use of PPE during psychological assessment, which inherently breaches standardized test administration procedures. The current study provides preliminary evidence to support use of PPE during administration of the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB). Method This is a paired-case control study in which participants were administered the NAB using PPE. These individuals were matched based on age, sex, and education with participants from the same setting who were administered the NAB using standardized test administration procedures. Results Independent samples t-tests were run to determine if there were differences in index scores between the PPE and non-PPE groups. There were no significant differences in the standard scores for the NAB Total Index and all NAB Index scores with the exception of Language. Among the subtests that comprise the Language Index, only T-scores on the Oral Production subtest difference significantly between the PPE and non-PPE groups. Conclusions With the exception of the Language Index, index standard scores for both groups were found to be generally statistically equivalent. Given the sample size and setting limitations, no clear conclusions can be drawn about why performance varied between groups on the Language Index. Nevertheless, these data provide preliminary support for the use of PPE during administration of selected modules of the NAB.


Brain Injury ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard O. Temple ◽  
Dennis J. Zgaljardic ◽  
Beatriz C. Abreu ◽  
Gary S. Seale ◽  
Glenn V. Ostir ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Luck ◽  
Alexander Pabst ◽  
Francisca S. Rodriguez ◽  
Matthias L. Schroeter ◽  
Veronica Witte ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document