![]() ![]() Tools for assessing cognitive function decline are often limited by issues of measurement efficacy, testing bias, inconsistent retest reliability, or cost. Scores were most closely correlated with measures of verbal processing, manual dexterity/speed, visual contrast sensitivity, visuospatial/executive function, and speed/sequencing. Psychometric validity of Cognivue ® was demonstrated vs. ![]() Reliability analyses showed similar scores across repeated testing for Cognivue ® ( R 2 = 0.81 r = 0.90) and SLUMS ( R 2 = 0.67 r = 0.82). Cognivue ® classification scores were validated, demonstrating good agreement with SLUMS scores (weighted κ 0.57 95%CI: 0.50-0.63). For the clinical validation study, 401 participants completed ≥ 1 testing session, and 358 completed 2 sessions 1-2 wk apart. Therefore, conservatively, Cognivue ® scores of 55-64 corresponded to impairment, and 74-79 to no impairment. Analyses showed that SLUMS cut-off scores of 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. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS, reference standard) and Cognivue ® tests. For the cut-off score determination study, 92 participants completed St. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |