IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i19p6869-d1252025.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of a Harmonised, Three-Item Cognitive Screening Instrument for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE-Cog)

Author

Listed:
  • Mark R. O’Donovan

    (Health Research Board Clinical Research Facility, University College Cork, Mercy University Hospital, T12WE28 Cork, Ireland)

  • Nicola Cornally

    (Catherine McAuley School of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork, T12AK54 Cork, Ireland)

  • Rónán O’Caoimh

    (Health Research Board Clinical Research Facility, University College Cork, Mercy University Hospital, T12WE28 Cork, Ireland
    Department of Geriatric Medicine, Mercy University Hospital, T12WE28 Cork, Ireland)

Abstract

More accurate and standardised screening and assessment instruments are needed for studies to better understand the epidemiology of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia in Europe. The Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) does not have a harmonised multi-domain cognitive test available. The current study proposes and validates a new instrument, the SHARE cognitive instrument (SHARE-Cog), for this large European longitudinal cohort. Three cognitive domains/sub-tests were available across all main waves of the SHARE and incorporated into SHARE-Cog; these included 10-word registration, verbal fluency (animal naming) and 10-word recall. Subtests were weighted using regression analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed from the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curves. Diagnostic categories included normal cognition (NC), subjective memory complaints (SMC), MCI and dementia. A total of 20,752 participants were included from wave 8, with a mean age of 75 years; 55% were female. A 45-point SHARE-Cog was developed and validated and had excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying dementia (AUC = 0.91); very good diagnostic accuracy for cognitive impairment (MCI + dementia), (AUC = 0.81); and good diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing MCI from dementia (AUC = 0.76) and MCI from SMC + NC (AUC = 0.77). SHARE-Cog is a new, short cognitive screening instrument developed and validated to assess cognition in the SHARE. In this cross-sectional analysis, it has good–excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying cognitive impairment in this wave of SHARE, but further study is required to confirm this in previous waves and over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark R. O’Donovan & Nicola Cornally & Rónán O’Caoimh, 2023. "Validation of a Harmonised, Three-Item Cognitive Screening Instrument for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE-Cog)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(19), pages 1-14, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:19:p:6869-:d:1252025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/19/6869/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/19/6869/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herman Oyen & Johan Heyden & Rom Perenboom & Carol Jagger, 2006. "Monitoring population disability: evaluation of a new Global Activity Limitation Indicator (GALI)," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(3), pages 153-161, June.
    2. Estrella, Arturo, 1998. "A New Measure of Fit for Equations with Dichotomous Dependent Variables," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 16(2), pages 198-205, April.
    3. Holly Janes & Margaret S. Pepe, 2009. "Adjusting for covariate effects on classification accuracy using the covariate-adjusted receiver operating characteristic curve," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(2), pages 371-382.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franck Sédillot, 2001. "La pente des taux contient-elle de l'information sur l'activité économique future ?," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 147(1), pages 141-157.
    2. Alexey Mikhaylov, 2019. "Oil and Gas Budget Revenues in Russia after Crisis in 2015," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 9(2), pages 375-380.
    3. Park, Byeong U. & Simar, Léopold & Zelenyuk, Valentin, 2017. "Nonparametric estimation of dynamic discrete choice models for time series data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 97-120.
    4. Richard H. Clarida & Lucio Sarno & Mark P. Taylor & Giorgio Valente, 2006. "The Role of Asymmetries and Regime Shifts in the Term Structure of Interest Rates," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(3), pages 1193-1224, May.
    5. Lahiri, Kajal & Yang, Liu, 2013. "Forecasting Binary Outcomes," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1025-1106, Elsevier.
    6. Michael LaCour-Little & Michael Marschoun & Clark L. Maxam, 2002. "Improving Parametric Mortgage Prepayment Models with Non-parametric Kernel Regression," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 24(3), pages 299-328.
    7. Ellen Melbye Langballe & Vegard Skirbekk & Bjørn Heine Strand, 2023. "Subjective age and the association with intrinsic capacity, functional ability, and health among older adults in Norway," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-10, December.
    8. Danping Liu & Xiao-Hua Zhou, 2013. "Covariate Adjustment in Estimating the Area Under ROC Curve with Partially Missing Gold Standard," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(1), pages 91-100, March.
    9. Christophe Blot & Grégory Levieuge, 2008. "Les indicateurs des conditions monétaires permettent-ils de prévoir l'activité économique ?," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 91-116.
    10. Grégory Levieuge & Christophe Blot, 2008. "Are MCIs Good Indicators of Economic Activity ? Evidence from the G7 Countries," Sciences Po publications 2008-07, Sciences Po.
    11. Bronwyn H. Hall & Albert N. Link & John T. Scott, 2003. "Universities as Research Partners," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 485-491, May.
    12. Thomas Hansen & Marcela Petrová Kafková & Ruth Katz & Ariela Lowenstein & Sigal Naim & George Pavlidis & Feliciano Villar & Kieran Walsh & Marja Aartsen, 2021. "Exclusion from Social Relations in Later Life: Micro- and Macro-Level Patterns and Correlations in a European Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Jefferson, Philip N. & Pryor, Frederic L., 1999. "On the geography of hate," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 389-395, December.
    14. Arturo Estrella & Anthony P. Rodrigues & Sebastian Schich, 2003. "How Stable is the Predictive Power of the Yield Curve? Evidence from Germany and the United States," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(3), pages 629-644, August.
    15. Cruz-Rodríguez Alexis, 2013. "The Relationship between Fiscal Sustainability and Currency Crises in Some Selected Countries," Review of Economic Perspectives, Sciendo, vol. 13(4), pages 176-194, December.
    16. Karnizova, Lilia & Li, Jiaxiong (Chris), 2014. "Economic policy uncertainty, financial markets and probability of US recessions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 261-265.
    17. Sylvain Chareyron & Naomie Mahmoudi, 2022. "The effects of disability benefits on the employment of low-skilled youth: Evidence from France," Erudite Working Paper 2022-09, Erudite.
    18. Harri Pönkä, 2017. "Predicting the direction of US stock markets using industry returns," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1451-1480, June.
    19. Harri Pönkä & Markku Stenborg, 2020. "Forecasting the state of the Finnish business cycle," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 29(1), pages 81-99, Spring.
    20. Nathalie Picard & Constantinos Antoniou, 2014. "Econometric Methods For Land Use Microsimulation," Working Papers hal-01092031, HAL.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:19:p:6869-:d:1252025. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.