Original Research Article
Clock Drawing Test in Mild Cognitive Impairment: Quantitative Analysis of Four Scoring Methods and Qualitative AnalysisLee K.S.a, b · Kim E.A.d · Hong C.H.e · Lee D.-W.c · Oh B.H.a, b · Cheong H.-K.f
aDepartment of Psychiatry, Yonsei University College of Medicine, bInstitution of Behavioral Science in Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, and cDepartment of Neuropsychiatry, College of Medicine, Inje University, Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, dOccupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, Incheon, eDepartment of Psychiatry, Ajou University School of Medicine, and fDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Background: The role of the clock drawing test (CDT) as a screening tool for dementia has been evaluated. However, studies focusing on mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are still lacking. The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of the CDT as a screening method for MCI. Methods: 524 subjects aged 60 years and older were recruited in the community. Of these, 241 were diagnosed as not cognitively impaired (NCI) and 224 were classified as MCI. The CDT was scored according to the Freedman, Rouleau, Todd, and CERAD CDT and an additional comprehensive scoring system incorporating elements of most CDT for qualitative analysis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of the 4 CDT scoring systems for MCI ranged from 40.7 to 56.4% and from 71.8 to 85.3%, respectively. The likelihood ratio and the positive and negative predictive values of the 4 CDT ranged from 18 to 29, 18.2 to 24.5 and from 55.9 to 78.4%, respectively. In qualitative analysis, a significantly lower performance in the clock numbers category was observed in the MCI group. Conclusion: This study suggests that although some qualitative analyses could help in identifying MCI individuals, the CDT is insufficient as a screening method to distinguish MCI individuals from NCI individuals in a clinical setting.
© 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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 government 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.