Neuropsychology Review
Latest Publications


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

628
(FIVE YEARS 129)

H-INDEX

83
(FIVE YEARS 9)

Published By Springer-Verlag

1573-6660, 1040-7308

Author(s):  
M. Séguin ◽  
C. Gagner ◽  
C. Tuerk ◽  
J. Lacombe Barrios ◽  
P. MacKay ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Kwabena Kusi-Mensah ◽  
Nana Dansoah Nuamah ◽  
Stephen Wemakor ◽  
Joel Agorinya ◽  
Ramata Seidu ◽  
...  

AbstractSeveral tools have been developed to assess executive function (EFs) and adaptive functioning, although in mainly Western populations. Information on tools for low-and-middle-income country children is scanty. A scoping review of such instruments was therefore undertaken.We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis- Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., in Annals of Internal Medicine 169(7), 467–473, 2018). A search was made for primary research papers of all study designs that focused on development or adaptation of EF or adaptive function tools in low-and-middle-income countries, published between 1st January 1894 to 15th September 2020. 14 bibliographic databases were searched, including several non-English databases and the data were independently charted by at least 2 reviewers.The search strategy identified 5675 eligible abstracts, which was pruned down to 570 full text articles. These full-text articles were then manually screened for eligibility with 51 being eligible. 41 unique tools coming in 49 versions were reviewed. Of these, the Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning (BRIEF- multiple versions), Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), Go/No-go and the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure (ROCF) had the most validations undertaken for EF tests. For adaptive functions, the tools with the most validation studies were the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS- multiple versions) and the Child Function Impairment Rating Scale (CFIRS- first edition).There is a fair assortment of tests available that have either been developed or adapted for use among children in developing countries but with limited range of validation studies. However, their psychometric adequacy for this population was beyond the scope of this paper.


Author(s):  
David E. Vance ◽  
Victor A. Del Bene ◽  
Jennifer Sandson Frank ◽  
Rebecca Billings ◽  
Kristen Triebel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Joyce Y. C. Chan ◽  
Baker K. K. Bat ◽  
Adrian Wong ◽  
Tak Kit Chan ◽  
Zhaohua Huo ◽  
...  

AbstractDigital drawing tests have been proposed for cognitive screening over the past decade. However, the diagnostic performance is still to clarify. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance among different types of digital and paper-and-pencil drawing tests in the screening of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Diagnostic studies evaluating digital or paper-and-pencil drawing tests for the screening of MCI or dementia were identified from OVID databases, included Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Studies evaluated any type of drawing tests for the screening of MCI or dementia and compared with healthy controls. This study was performed according to PRISMA and the guidelines proposed by the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. A bivariate random-effects model was used to compare the diagnostic performance of these drawing tests and presented with a summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of clock drawing test (CDT). Other types of drawing tests were the secondary outcomes. A total of 90 studies with 22,567 participants were included. In the screening of MCI, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the digital CDT was 0.86 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.69 to 0.98), respectively. For the paper-and-pencil CDT, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of brief scoring method was 0.63 (95% CI = 0.49 to 0.75) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.84), and detailed scoring method was 0.63 (95% CI = 0.56 to 0.71) and 0.72 (95% CI = 0.65 to 0.78). In the screening of dementia, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of the digital CDT was 0.83 (95% CI = 0.72 to 0.90) and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92). The performances of the digital and paper-and-pencil pentagon drawing tests were comparable in the screening of dementia. The digital CDT demonstrated better diagnostic performance than paper-and-pencil CDT for MCI. Other types of digital drawing tests showed comparable performance with paper-and-pencil formats. Therefore, digital drawing tests can be used as an alternative tool for the screening of MCI and dementia.


Author(s):  
Dion L. Braganza ◽  
Lauren E. Fitzpatrick ◽  
Mai L. Nguyen ◽  
Simon F. Crowe

Author(s):  
Joy Noelle Yumul ◽  
Louise Crowe ◽  
Cathy Catroppa ◽  
Vicki Anderson ◽  
Audrey McKinlay

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document