Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 25, No. 1, 2005
Issue release date: June 2005
Neuroepidemiology 2005;25:19–25
(DOI:10.1159/000085309)

Assessment of Cognitive Decline in Old Age with Brief Tests Amenable to Telephone Administration

Wilson R.S. · Bennett D.A.
aRush Alzheimer’s Disease Center and Departments of bNeurological Sciences and cPsychology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Ill., USA

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

The adequacy with which brief cognitive tests suitable for telephone administration can assess cognitive decline due to aging and Alzheimer’s disease is uncertain. The authors examined these issues with data from the Religious Orders Study, which involves annual clinical evaluations and brain donation at death. Participants are 996 older Catholic clergy members. Analyses focused on seven cognitive tests which can be administered in person or by telephone in less than 15 min. Composite measures of global cognition and of episodic, semantic and working memory were formed. During a mean of 5.8 years of follow-up, performance on each composite measure declined in persons with and without dementia at baseline. Among those without dementia, possession of the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele was associated with more rapid cognitive decline, especially in episodic and working memory. Level of performance on each cognitive measure proximate to death was inversely related to the level of cortical plaques and tangles in the brain. In a subset of persons who were given the tests by telephone, there was no evidence that performance differed from in-person administration. The results suggest that briefly assessing cognition with tests amenable to telephone administration may prove useful in longitudinal epidemiologic studies of older persons.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Brandt J, Folstein MF: Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status. Professional Manual. Lutz, Psychological Assessment Resources, 2003.
  2. Grodstein F, Chen J, Pollen DA, et al: Postmenopausal hormone therapy and cognitive function in healthy older women. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000;48:746–752.
  3. Grodstein F, Chen J, Wilson RS, Manson JE: Type 2 diabetes and cognitive function in community-dwelling elderly women. Diabetes Care 2001;24:1060–1065.
  4. Knopman DS, Knudson D, Yoes ME, Weiss DJ: Development and standardization of a new telephone cognitive screening test: The Minnesota Cognitive Activity Screen (MCAS). Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol 2000;13:286–296.
  5. Lee S, Kawachi I, Berkman LF, Grodstein F: Education, other socioeconomic indicators, and cognitive function. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:712–720.
  6. McKahnn G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan E: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: Report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984;34:939–944.

    External Resources

  7. Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Schneider JA, et al: Natural history of mild cognitive impairment in older persons. Neurology 2002;59:198–205.
  8. Hixson JE, Vernier DT: Restriction isotyping of human apolipoprotein E by gene amplification and cleavage with Hha I. J Lipid Res 1990;31:545–548.
  9. Bennett DA, Wilson RS, Schneider JA, et al: Apolipoprotein E ε4 allele, AD pathology, and the clinical expression of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2003;60:246–252.
  10. Wilson RS, Schneider JA, Barnes LL, et al: The apolipoprotein E ε4 allele and decline in different cognitive systems during a 6-year period. Arch Neurol 2002;59:1154–1160.
  11. Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Barnes LL, et al: Individual differences in rates of change in cognitive abilities of older persons. Psychol Aging 2002;17:179–193.
  12. Albert M, Smith L, Scherr P, et al: Use of brief cognitive tests to identify individuals in the community with clinically diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Neurosci 1991;57:167–178.
  13. Welsch DA, Butters NC, Mohs RC, et al: The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). V. A normative study of the neuropsychological battery. Neurology 1994;44:609–614.
  14. Wechsler D: Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised Manual. San Antonio, Psychological Corp., 1987.
  15. Craik JIM: A functional account of age differences in memory; in Klix E, Hagendorf H (eds): Human Memory and Cognitive Capabilities: Mechanisms and Performances. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1986, pp 409–422.
  16. Rand WM: Objective criteria for the evaluation of clustering methods. J Am Stat Assoc 1971;66:846–850.

    External Resources

  17. Laird N, Ware J: Random-effects models for longitudinal data. Biometrics 1982;38:963–974.
  18. Wilson RS, Gilley DW, Bennett DA, et al: Person-specific paths of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol Aging 2000;15:18–28.
  19. SAS Institute Inc.: SAS/STAT® User’s Guide, version 8. Cary, SAS Institute Inc., 2000.
  20. Carpenter BD, Strauss ME, Ball AM: Telephone assessment of memory in the elderly. J Clin Gerontol 1995;1:107–117.
  21. Lanska DJ, Schmitt FA, Stewart JM, Howe JN: Telephone-assessed mental state. Dementia 1993;4:117–119.
  22. Roccaforte WH, Burke WJ, Bayer BL, Wengel SP: Validation of a telephone version of the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992;40:697–702.
  23. Lines CR, McCarroll KA, Lipton RB, Block GA, PRAISE Study Group: Telephone screening for amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 2003;60:261–266.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50