IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/geronb/v77y2022i2p341-350..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of a Self-Administered Online Cognitive Assessment in Detecting Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment
[The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease]

Author

Listed:
  • Theone S E Paterson
  • Brintha Sivajohan
  • Sandra Gardner
  • Malcolm A Binns
  • Kathryn A Stokes
  • Morris Freedman
  • Brian Levine
  • Angela K Troyer

Abstract

ObjectivesOur aim was to validate the online Brain Health Assessment (BHA) for detection of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) compared to gold-standard neuropsychological assessment. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the BHA to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, community-dwelling older adults completed a neuropsychological assessment, were diagnosed as normal cognition (NC) or aMCI, and completed the BHA and MoCA. Both logistic regression (LR) and penalized logistic regression (PLR) analyses determined BHA and demographic variables predicting aMCI; MoCA variables were similarly modeled. Diagnostic accuracy was compared using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC) analyses.ResultsNinety-one participants met inclusion criteria (51 aMCI, 40 NC). PLR modeling for the BHA indicated Face–Name Association, Spatial Working Memory, and age-predicted aMCI (ROC AUC = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66–0.86). Optimal cut-points resulted in 21% classified as aMCI (positive), 23% negative, and 56% inconclusive. For the MoCA, digits, abstraction, delayed recall, orientation, and age predicted aMCI (ROC AUC = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.61–0.82). Optimal cut-points resulted in 22% classified positive, 8% negative, and 70% inconclusive (LR results presented within). The BHA model classified fewer participants into the inconclusive category and more as negative for aMCI, compared to the MoCA model (Stuart–Maxwell p = .004).DiscussionThe self-administered BHA provides similar detection of aMCI as a clinician-administered screener (MoCA), with fewer participants classified inconclusively. The BHA has the potential to save practitioners time and decrease unnecessary referrals for a comprehensive assessment to determine the presence of aMCI.

Suggested Citation

  • Theone S E Paterson & Brintha Sivajohan & Sandra Gardner & Malcolm A Binns & Kathryn A Stokes & Morris Freedman & Brian Levine & Angela K Troyer, 2022. "Accuracy of a Self-Administered Online Cognitive Assessment in Detecting Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment [The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: Recommendations f," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 77(2), pages 341-350.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:77:y:2022:i:2:p:341-350.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/geronb/gbab097
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:geronb:v:77:y:2022:i:2:p:341-350.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.