Novel computer-based testing shows multi-domain cognitive dysfunction in patients with multiple sclerosis

Cognitive screening for adult psychiatric outpatients: Comparison of the Cognivue® to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment

In this editorial we comment on the article by Cahn-Hidalgo D published in a recent issue of the World Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 10(1); 1-11. We focus on the importance of utilizing psychometrically valid cognitive screening tools when assessing for cognitive decline in older adults in a psychiatric outpatient setting. We compared the use of Cognivue^® to use of the montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) as a cognitive screening tool. A total of 58 patients aged 55 and over participated in this comparison study. Patients completed cognitive screening on Cognivue^®, a new Food and Drug Administration-cleared computer screening device, and the MoCA. The results of patient performance using these two instruments were analyzed. Sixteen (28%) patients screened negative for cognitive impairment on both assessments. Forty-two (72%) patients screened positive on one or both of the assessments. There was 43% agreement between Cognivue^® and the MoCA in identifying patients with cognitive impairment, and individual subtests were weakly correlated. The MoCA was determined to be the preferred instrument due to its high sensitivity and specificity (100% and 87%, respectively) when screening for cognitive impairment. We propose that the use of Cognivue^® cognitive screening tool be closely reviewed until more research proves that the test meets the standards for reliability and validity. It is important for clinicians to remember that screeners should not be used to diagnosis patients with neurocognitive disorders; instead, they should be used to determine whether further evaluation is warranted. Additionally, misdiagnosing of neurocognitive disorders can pose unnecessary psychological and emotional harm to patients and their families and also lead to incorrect treatment and undue healthcare costs.

Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue®)

BACKGROUND

Cognitive issues such as Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias confer a substantial negative impact. Problems relating to sensitivity, subjectivity, and inherent bias can limit the usefulness of many traditional methods of assessing cognitive impairment.

AIM

To determine cut-off scores for classification of cognitive impairment, and assess Cognivue^® safety and efficacy in a large validation study.

METHODS

Adults (age 55-95 years) at risk for age-related cognitive decline or dementia were invited via posters and email to participate in two cohort studies conducted at various outpatient clinics and assisted- and independent-living facilities. In the cut-off score determination study (n = 92), optimization analyses by positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), and by accuracy and error bias were conducted. In the clinical validation study (n = 401), regression, rank linear regression, and factor analyses were conducted. Participants in the clinical validation study also completed other neuropsychological tests.

RESULTS

For the cut-off score determination study, 92 participants completed St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS, reference standard) and Cognivue^® tests. Analyses showed that SLUMS cut-off scores of < 21 (impairment) and > 26 (no impairment) corresponded to Cognivue^® scores of 54.5 (NPA = 0.92; PPA = 0.64) and 78.5 (NPA = 0.5; PPA = 0.79), respectively. Therefore, conservatively, Cognivue^® scores of 55-64 corresponded to impairment, and 74-79 to no impairment. For the clinical validation study, 401 participants completed ≥ 1 testing session, and 358 completed 2 sessions 1-2 wk apart. Cognivue^® classification scores were validated, demonstrating good agreement with SLUMS scores (weighted κ 0.57; 95%CI: 0.50-0.63). Reliability analyses showed similar scores across repeated testing for Cognivue^® (R² = 0.81; r = 0.90) and SLUMS (R² = 0.67; r = 0.82). Psychometric validity of Cognivue^® was demonstrated vs. traditional neuropsychological tests. Scores were most closely correlated with measures of verbal processing, manual dexterity/speed, visual contrast sensitivity, visuospatial/executive function, and speed/sequencing.

CONCLUSION

Cognivue^® scores ≤ 50 avoid misclassification of impairment, and scores ≥ 75 avoid misclassification of unimpairment. The validation study demonstrates good agreement between Cognivue^® and SLUMS; superior reliability; and good psychometric validity.

Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices in multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

Background:

The proliferation of computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs) for screening and monitoring cognitive impairment is increasing exponentially. Previous reviews of computerized tests for multiple sclerosis (MS) were primarily qualitative and did not rigorously compare CNADs on psychometric properties.

Objective:

We aimed to systematically review the literature on the use of CNADs in MS and identify test batteries and single tests with good evidence for reliability and validity.

Method:

A search of four major online databases was conducted for publications related to computerized testing and MS. Test–retest reliability and validity coefficients and effect sizes were recorded for each CNAD test, along with administration characteristics.

Results:

We identified 11 batteries and 33 individual tests from 120 peer-reviewed articles meeting the inclusion criteria. CNADs with the strongest psychometric support include the CogState Brief Battery, Cognitive Drug Research Battery, NeuroTrax, CNS-Vital Signs, and computer-based administrations of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test.

Conclusion:

We identified several CNADs that are valid to screen for MS-related cognitive impairment, or to supplement full, conventional neuropsychological assessment. The necessity of testing with a technician, and in a controlled clinic/laboratory environment, remains uncertain.