Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction to Cognitive Screening Instruments: Rationale, Desiderata, and Assessment of Utility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cognitive Screening Instruments

Abstract

Cognitive disorders are common and likely to become more so as the world population ages. Pending the definition of reliable biomarkers, the identification of such disorders, as a prelude to effective management, involves the use of cognitive screening instruments. The desiderata for effective cognitive screening instruments and the methods for assessment of their utility are considered in this chapter, prior to the in-depth analysis of specific instruments in subsequent chapters. The potential role of factors such as age, education, and culture on test performance and interpretation is also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cullen B, O’Neill B, Evans JJ, Coen RF, Lawlor BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2007;78:790–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Woodford HJ, George J. Cognitive assessment in the elderly: a review of clinical methods. Q J Med. 2007;100:469–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nasreddine Z. Short clinical assessments applicable to busy practices. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(10 Suppl 16):6–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ismail Z, Rajji TK, Shulman KI. Brief cognitive screening instruments: an update. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;25:111–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burns A, Lawlor B, Craig S. Assessment scales in old age psychiatry. 2nd ed. London: Martin Dunitz; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tate RL. A compendium of tests, scales, and questionnaires. The practitioner’s guide to measuring outcomes after acquired brain impairment. Hove: Psychology Press; 2010. p. 91–270.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shulman KI, Feinstein A. Quick cognitive screening for clinicians. Mini mental, clock drawing, and other brief tests. London: Martin Dunitz; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet. 2005;366:2112–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alzheimer’s Society. Dementia UK. A report into the prevalence and cost of dementia prepared by the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the London School of Economics and the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London, for the Alzheimer’s Society. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Prince M, Jackson J, editors. World Alzheimer Report 2009. London: Alzheimer’s Disease International; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brayne C, Fox C, Boustani M. Dementia screening in primary care: is it time? JAMA. 2007;298:2409–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Iliffe S, Robinson L, Brayne C, et al. Primary care and dementia: 1. Diagnosis, screening and disclosure. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24:895–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. National Audit Office. Improving services and support for people with dementia. London: HMSO; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Department of Health. Living well with dementia: a National Dementia Strategy. London: Department of Health; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Alzheimer’s Society. Mapping the Dementia Gap: Study produced by Tesco, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Scotland. London: Alzheimer’s Society; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Singh-Manoux A, Kivimaki M, Glymour MM, et al. Timing of onset of cognitive decline: results from Whitehall II prospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Assumptions used in estimating a population benchmark. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/commissioningguides/memoryassessmentservice/assumptions.jsp. Accessed 23 Feb 2012.

  18. Menon R, Larner AJ. Use of cognitive screening instruments in primary care: the impact of national dementia directives (NICE/SCIE, National Dementia Strategy). Fam Pract. 2011;28:272–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Larner AJ. Dementia in clinical practice: a neurological perspective. Studies in the dementia clinic. London: Springer; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Steenland K, Macneil J, Bartell S, Lah J. Analyses of diagnostic patterns at 30 Alzheimer’s Disease Centers in the US. Neuroepidemiology. 2010;35:19–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wilson JMG, Jungner G. Principles and practice of screening for disease. Public health paper No. 34. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Moorhouse P. Screening for dementia in primary care. Can Rev Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2009;12:8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wimo A, Prince M. World Alzheimer Report 2010. The global economic impact of dementia. London: Alzheimer’s Disease International; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Amieva H, Jacqmin-Gadda H, Orgogozo JM, et al. The 9 year cognitive decline before dementia of the Alzheimer type: a prospective population-based study. Brain. 2005;128:1093–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fox NC, Warrington EK, Freeborough PA, et al. Presymptomatic hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. A longitudinal MRI study. Brain. 1996;119:2001–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Fox NC, Warrington EK, Seiffer AL, Agnew SK, Rossor MN. Presymptomatic cognitive deficits in individuals at risk of familial Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal prospective study. Brain. 1998;121:1631–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Morris JC, Roe CM, Grant EA, et al. Pittsburgh compound B imaging and prediction of progression from cognitive normality to symptomatic Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1469–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Petersen RC, Thomas RG, Grundman M, et al. Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:2379–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Feldman HH, Ferris S, Winblad B, et al. Effect of rivastigmine on delay to diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease from mild cognitive impairment: the InDDEx study. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:501–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Winblad B, Gauthier S, Scinto L, et al. Safety and efficacy of galantamine in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2008;70:2024–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cohen-Mansfield J. Heterogeneity in dementia: challenges and opportunities. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2000;14:60–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Mendez MF, Cummings JL. Dementia: a clinical approach. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Butterworth-Heinemann; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kurlan R, editor. Handbook of secondary dementias. New York: Taylor and Francis; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Larner AJ. Neuropsychological neurology: the neurocognitive impairments of neurological disorders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Giannakopoulos P, Hof PR, editors. Dementia in clinical practice. Basel: Karger; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  36. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence/Social Care Institute for Excellence. Dementia: supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. NICE Clinical Guidance 42. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Doran M, Larner AJ. NICE/SCIE dementia guidance: time to reconsider. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil. 2008;8(1):34–5.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Malloy PF, Cummings JL, Coffey CE, et al. Cognitive screening instruments in neuropsychiatry: a report of the Committee on Research of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1997;9:189–97.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lorentz WJ, Scanlan JM, Borson S. Brief screening tests for dementia. Can J Psychiatry. 2002;47:723–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Brodaty H, Low LF, Gibson L, Burns K. What is the best dementia screening instrument for general practitioners to use? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;14:391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Raiha I, Isoaho R, Ojanlatva A, Viramo P, Sulkava R, Kivela SL. Poor performance in the mini-mental state examination due to causes other than dementia. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001;19:34–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Crum RM, Anthony JC, Bassett SS, Folstein MF. Population-based norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by age and educational level. JAMA. 1993;269:2386–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Monsch AU, Foldi NS, Ermini-Funfschilling DE, et al. Improving the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination. Acta Neurol Scand. 1995;92:145–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Parker C, Philp I. Screening for cognitive impairment among older people in black and minority ethnic groups. Age Ageing. 2004;33:447–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Williams CL, Tappen RM, Rosselli M, Keane F, Newlin K. Willingness to be screened and tested for cognitive impairment: cross-cultural comparison. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2010;25:160–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitiliano P, Dokmak A. The mini-cog: a cognitive “vital signs” measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15:1021–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Inouye SK, Robison JT, Froehlich TE, Richardson ED. The time and change test: a simple screening test for dementia. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1998;53:M281–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mitrushina M, Boone KB, Razani J, D’Elia LF. Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Strauss E, Sherman EMS, Spreen O. A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED, Tranel D. Neuropsychological assessment. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mitchell AJ, Malladi S. Screening and case-finding tools for the detection of dementia. Part I: evidence-based meta-analysis of multidomain tests. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010;18:759–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ, editors. Statistics with confidence. Confidence intervals and statistical guidelines. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 105–19.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Qizilbash N. Evidence-based diagnosis. In: Qizilbash N, Schneider LS, Chui H, et al., editors. Evidence-based dementia practice. Oxford: Blackwell; 2002. p. 18–25.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cook C, Cleland J, Huijbregts P. Creation and critique of studies of diagnostic accuracy: use of the STARD and QUADAS methodological quality assessment tools. J Man Manipulative Ther. 2007;15:93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nordenstrom J. Evidence-based medicine in Sherlock Holmes’ footsteps. Oxford: Blackwell; 2007. p. 51–60.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  57. Stein J, Luppa M, Brahler E, Konig HH, Riedel-Heller SG. The assessment of changes in cognitive functioning: reliable change indices for neuropsychological instruments in the elderly – a systematic review. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;29:275–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Oliveira MRF, AdeC G, Toscano CM. QUADAS and STARD: evaluating the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Rev Saude Publica. 2011;45:416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology checklist 5: studies of diagnostic accuracy. In: A guideline developer’s handbook. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2007, Annex B.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Bachmann LM, Puhan MA, ter Riet G, Bossuyt PM. Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey. BMJ. 2006;332:1127–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ferrante di Ruffano L, Hyde CJ, McCaffery KJ, Bossuyt PM, Deeks JJ. Assessing the value of diagnostic tests: a framework for designing and evaluating trials. BMJ. 2012;344:e686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, Reitsma J, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii, 1–234.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Crawford S, Whitnall L, Robertson J, Evans JJ. A systematic review of the accuracy and ­clinical utility of the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination and the Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-Revised in the diagnosis of dementia. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012;27:659–69.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Marson A, Jacoby A, Johnson A, et al. Immediate versus deferred antiepileptic drug treatment for early epilepsy and single seizures: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:2007–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al. Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:734–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al. 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. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7:270–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Sperling RA, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, et al. Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7:280–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Galvin JE, Fagan AM, Holtzman DM, Mintun MA, Morris JC. Relationship of dementia screening tests with biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. 2010;133:3290–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th edn, text revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Landau SM, Harvey D, Madison CM, et al. Comparing predictors of conversion and decline in mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2010;75:230–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Anne-Marie Cagliarini for a critical reading of and helpful suggestions related to this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Function Clinic, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK

    Andrew J. Larner M.D.

Authors
  1. Andrew J. Larner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Larner M.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lower Lane, Liverpool, L9 7LJ, United Kingdom

    A. J. Larner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Larner, A.J. (2013). Introduction to Cognitive Screening Instruments: Rationale, Desiderata, and Assessment of Utility. In: Larner, A. (eds) Cognitive Screening Instruments. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2452-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2452-8_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-2451-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-2452-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation