Abstract
Abstract
Background
Whether in the context of monitoring disease progression or in assessing the effects of interventions, a major challenge in dementia research is determining when an individual has undergone meaningful change in symptoms and other relevant outcomes such as cognitive test performance. The challenge lies in differentiating genuine improvement or deterioration from change in scores due to random and systematic error.
Body
In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of available methods for assessing individual-level change in the context of key challenges, including imperfect and differential reliability of scores, and practice effects. We discuss indices of reliable change and the use of composite and item response theory (IRT) scores.
Conclusion
We conclude that IRT-based approaches hold particular promise because they have the flexibility to accommodate solutions to a wide range of issues that influence the accuracy of judgements of meaningful change. We close by discussing the practical implications of adopting IRT-based approaches.
Funder
Medical Research Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cognitive Neuroscience,Neurology (clinical),Neurology
Reference62 articles.
1. Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, Wimo A, Ribeiro W, Ferri CP. The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement. 2013;9(1):63–75.e2.
2. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW, Fischer JS. Neuropsychological assessment. USA: Oxford University Press; 2004.
3. Chelune GJ, Duff K. The assessment of change: serial assessments in dementia evaluations. In: Handbook on the Neuropsychology of Aging and Dementia. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 61–76.
4. Hensel A, Angermeyer MC, Riedel-Heller SG. Measuring cognitive change in older adults. Do reliable change indices of the SIDAM predict dementia? J Neurol. 2007;254(10):1359.
5. Stein J, Luppa M, Brähler E, König H-H, Riedel-Heller SG. The assessment of changes in cognitive functioning: reliable change indices for neuropsychological instruments in the elderly – a systematic review. DEM. 2010;29(3):275–86.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献