Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% fe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of clinical neuropsychology 2024-07, Vol.39 (5), p.635-643
Hauptverfasser: Sachs, Bonnie C, Latham, Lauren A, Bateman, James R, Cleveland, Mary Jo, Espeland, Mark A, Fischer, Eric, Gaussoin, Sarah A, Leng, Iris, Rapp, Stephen R, Rogers, Samantha, Shappell, Heather M, Williams, Benjamin J, Yang, Mia, Craft, Suzanne
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 643
container_issue 5
container_start_page 635
container_title Archives of clinical neuropsychology
container_volume 39
creator Sachs, Bonnie C
Latham, Lauren A
Bateman, James R
Cleveland, Mary Jo
Espeland, Mark A
Fischer, Eric
Gaussoin, Sarah A
Leng, Iris
Rapp, Stephen R
Rogers, Samantha
Shappell, Heather M
Williams, Benjamin J
Yang, Mia
Craft, Suzanne
description Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% female; 84% White) were enrolled from the Wake Forest ADRC. Portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, were completed by telephone or video within ~6 months of participant's in-person visit. Adaptations for phone administration (e.g., Oral Trails for Trail Making Test [TMT] and Blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] for MoCA) were made. Participants reported on the pleasantness, difficulty, and preference for each modality. Staff provided validity ratings for assessments. Participants' remote data were adjudicated by cognitive experts blinded to the in person-diagnosis (NC [N = 44], MCI [N = 35], Dementia [N = 11], or other [N = 3]). Remote assessments were rated as pleasant as in-person assessments by 74% of participants and equally difficult by 75%. Staff validity rating (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%) was good. Concordance between remote/in-person scores was generally moderate to good (r = .3 -.8; p  .05). Agreement between remote/in-person adjudicated cognitive status was good (k = .61-.64). We found preliminary evidence that older adults, including those with cognitive impairment, can be assessed remotely using a modified UDSv3 research battery. Adjudication of cognitive status that relies on remotely collected data is comparable to classifications using in-person assessments.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/arclin/acae001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11447737</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2920572990</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-d6b96c67d716db6fe4795838a30bcb41607e00d9e1fbef4f446981fd7eec3ef23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUU1P3DAQjapWhdJee6x8ay8BO87G8alaLaVFokKipT1aTjxmp_LHYnuR6G_hx5JlFwSnGc178-ZpXlV9ZPSQUcmPdBodhiM9aqCUvar2WS94Petb_vpZv1e9y_kfpXTGWPO22uN9I5ng7X51dwI644AOyy2JllyAjwXI3HgMmEvSBWPYAGUJ5DKgjcmTY100-QWl_gMpb3BOpjmZ5ww5ewhls3DuDEwzs3Ylk79YluQnOkMW8SpgwRsgp36lMT3QdTBk7v4vAT2kz5kcY55swfvqjdUuw4ddPaguT779Xvyoz86_ny7mZ_XY9KzUphtkN3bCCNaZobPQCjnrea85HcahZR0V03OMBGYHsK1t2072zBoBMHKwDT-ovm51V-vBgxknS0k7tUrodbpVUaN6iQRcqqt4oxhrWyG4mBS-7BRSvF5DLspjHsE5HSCus2pkQ2eikZJO1MMtdUwx5wT26Q6japOp2maqdplOC5-eu3uiP4bI7wEnLqNn</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2920572990</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Sachs, Bonnie C ; Latham, Lauren A ; Bateman, James R ; Cleveland, Mary Jo ; Espeland, Mark A ; Fischer, Eric ; Gaussoin, Sarah A ; Leng, Iris ; Rapp, Stephen R ; Rogers, Samantha ; Shappell, Heather M ; Williams, Benjamin J ; Yang, Mia ; Craft, Suzanne</creator><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Bonnie C ; Latham, Lauren A ; Bateman, James R ; Cleveland, Mary Jo ; Espeland, Mark A ; Fischer, Eric ; Gaussoin, Sarah A ; Leng, Iris ; Rapp, Stephen R ; Rogers, Samantha ; Shappell, Heather M ; Williams, Benjamin J ; Yang, Mia ; Craft, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><description>Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% female; 84% White) were enrolled from the Wake Forest ADRC. Portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, were completed by telephone or video within ~6 months of participant's in-person visit. Adaptations for phone administration (e.g., Oral Trails for Trail Making Test [TMT] and Blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] for MoCA) were made. Participants reported on the pleasantness, difficulty, and preference for each modality. Staff provided validity ratings for assessments. Participants' remote data were adjudicated by cognitive experts blinded to the in person-diagnosis (NC [N = 44], MCI [N = 35], Dementia [N = 11], or other [N = 3]). Remote assessments were rated as pleasant as in-person assessments by 74% of participants and equally difficult by 75%. Staff validity rating (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%) was good. Concordance between remote/in-person scores was generally moderate to good (r = .3 -.8; p &lt; .05) except for TMT-A/OTMT-A (r = .3; p &gt; .05). Agreement between remote/in-person adjudicated cognitive status was good (k = .61-.64). We found preliminary evidence that older adults, including those with cognitive impairment, can be assessed remotely using a modified UDSv3 research battery. Adjudication of cognitive status that relies on remotely collected data is comparable to classifications using in-person assessments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1873-5843</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0887-6177</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-5843</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acae001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38291734</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis ; Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnosis ; Cognitive Dysfunction - etiology ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Neuropsychological Tests - standards ; Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Original Empirical ; Reproducibility of Results</subject><ispartof>Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 2024-07, Vol.39 (5), p.635-643</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-d6b96c67d716db6fe4795838a30bcb41607e00d9e1fbef4f446981fd7eec3ef23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-d6b96c67d716db6fe4795838a30bcb41607e00d9e1fbef4f446981fd7eec3ef23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9352-7033</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38291734$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Bonnie C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latham, Lauren A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bateman, James R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Mary Jo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espeland, Mark A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaussoin, Sarah A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Iris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, Stephen R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shappell, Heather M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Benjamin J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Mia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craft, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><title>Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease</title><title>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</title><addtitle>Arch Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><description>Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% female; 84% White) were enrolled from the Wake Forest ADRC. Portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, were completed by telephone or video within ~6 months of participant's in-person visit. Adaptations for phone administration (e.g., Oral Trails for Trail Making Test [TMT] and Blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] for MoCA) were made. Participants reported on the pleasantness, difficulty, and preference for each modality. Staff provided validity ratings for assessments. Participants' remote data were adjudicated by cognitive experts blinded to the in person-diagnosis (NC [N = 44], MCI [N = 35], Dementia [N = 11], or other [N = 3]). Remote assessments were rated as pleasant as in-person assessments by 74% of participants and equally difficult by 75%. Staff validity rating (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%) was good. Concordance between remote/in-person scores was generally moderate to good (r = .3 -.8; p &lt; .05) except for TMT-A/OTMT-A (r = .3; p &gt; .05). Agreement between remote/in-person adjudicated cognitive status was good (k = .61-.64). We found preliminary evidence that older adults, including those with cognitive impairment, can be assessed remotely using a modified UDSv3 research battery. Adjudication of cognitive status that relies on remotely collected data is comparable to classifications using in-person assessments.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnosis</subject><subject>Cognitive Dysfunction - etiology</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</subject><subject>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Original Empirical</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><issn>1873-5843</issn><issn>0887-6177</issn><issn>1873-5843</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUU1P3DAQjapWhdJee6x8ay8BO87G8alaLaVFokKipT1aTjxmp_LHYnuR6G_hx5JlFwSnGc178-ZpXlV9ZPSQUcmPdBodhiM9aqCUvar2WS94Petb_vpZv1e9y_kfpXTGWPO22uN9I5ng7X51dwI644AOyy2JllyAjwXI3HgMmEvSBWPYAGUJ5DKgjcmTY100-QWl_gMpb3BOpjmZ5ww5ewhls3DuDEwzs3Ylk79YluQnOkMW8SpgwRsgp36lMT3QdTBk7v4vAT2kz5kcY55swfvqjdUuw4ddPaguT779Xvyoz86_ny7mZ_XY9KzUphtkN3bCCNaZobPQCjnrea85HcahZR0V03OMBGYHsK1t2072zBoBMHKwDT-ovm51V-vBgxknS0k7tUrodbpVUaN6iQRcqqt4oxhrWyG4mBS-7BRSvF5DLspjHsE5HSCus2pkQ2eikZJO1MMtdUwx5wT26Q6japOp2maqdplOC5-eu3uiP4bI7wEnLqNn</recordid><startdate>20240724</startdate><enddate>20240724</enddate><creator>Sachs, Bonnie C</creator><creator>Latham, Lauren A</creator><creator>Bateman, James R</creator><creator>Cleveland, Mary Jo</creator><creator>Espeland, Mark A</creator><creator>Fischer, Eric</creator><creator>Gaussoin, Sarah A</creator><creator>Leng, Iris</creator><creator>Rapp, Stephen R</creator><creator>Rogers, Samantha</creator><creator>Shappell, Heather M</creator><creator>Williams, Benjamin J</creator><creator>Yang, Mia</creator><creator>Craft, Suzanne</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9352-7033</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240724</creationdate><title>Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease</title><author>Sachs, Bonnie C ; Latham, Lauren A ; Bateman, James R ; Cleveland, Mary Jo ; Espeland, Mark A ; Fischer, Eric ; Gaussoin, Sarah A ; Leng, Iris ; Rapp, Stephen R ; Rogers, Samantha ; Shappell, Heather M ; Williams, Benjamin J ; Yang, Mia ; Craft, Suzanne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c281t-d6b96c67d716db6fe4795838a30bcb41607e00d9e1fbef4f446981fd7eec3ef23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnosis</topic><topic>Cognitive Dysfunction - etiology</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - standards</topic><topic>Neuropsychological Tests - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Original Empirical</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Bonnie C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Latham, Lauren A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bateman, James R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cleveland, Mary Jo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Espeland, Mark A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fischer, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gaussoin, Sarah A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leng, Iris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, Stephen R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogers, Samantha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shappell, Heather M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Benjamin J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Mia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Craft, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sachs, Bonnie C</au><au>Latham, Lauren A</au><au>Bateman, James R</au><au>Cleveland, Mary Jo</au><au>Espeland, Mark A</au><au>Fischer, Eric</au><au>Gaussoin, Sarah A</au><au>Leng, Iris</au><au>Rapp, Stephen R</au><au>Rogers, Samantha</au><au>Shappell, Heather M</au><au>Williams, Benjamin J</au><au>Yang, Mia</au><au>Craft, Suzanne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease</atitle><jtitle>Archives of clinical neuropsychology</jtitle><addtitle>Arch Clin Neuropsychol</addtitle><date>2024-07-24</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>635</spage><epage>643</epage><pages>635-643</pages><issn>1873-5843</issn><issn>0887-6177</issn><eissn>1873-5843</eissn><abstract>Assess the feasibility and concurrent validity of a modified Uniform Data Set version 3 (UDSv3) for remote administration for individuals with normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and early dementia. Participants (N = 93) (age: 72.8 [8.9] years; education: 15.6 [2.5] years; 72% female; 84% White) were enrolled from the Wake Forest ADRC. Portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, were completed by telephone or video within ~6 months of participant's in-person visit. Adaptations for phone administration (e.g., Oral Trails for Trail Making Test [TMT] and Blind Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] for MoCA) were made. Participants reported on the pleasantness, difficulty, and preference for each modality. Staff provided validity ratings for assessments. Participants' remote data were adjudicated by cognitive experts blinded to the in person-diagnosis (NC [N = 44], MCI [N = 35], Dementia [N = 11], or other [N = 3]). Remote assessments were rated as pleasant as in-person assessments by 74% of participants and equally difficult by 75%. Staff validity rating (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%) was good. Concordance between remote/in-person scores was generally moderate to good (r = .3 -.8; p &lt; .05) except for TMT-A/OTMT-A (r = .3; p &gt; .05). Agreement between remote/in-person adjudicated cognitive status was good (k = .61-.64). We found preliminary evidence that older adults, including those with cognitive impairment, can be assessed remotely using a modified UDSv3 research battery. Adjudication of cognitive status that relies on remotely collected data is comparable to classifications using in-person assessments.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>38291734</pmid><doi>10.1093/arclin/acae001</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9352-7033</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1873-5843
ispartof Archives of clinical neuropsychology, 2024-07, Vol.39 (5), p.635-643
issn 1873-5843
0887-6177
1873-5843
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11447737
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis
Cognitive Dysfunction - diagnosis
Cognitive Dysfunction - etiology
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Neuropsychological Tests - standards
Neuropsychological Tests - statistics & numerical data
Original Empirical
Reproducibility of Results
title Feasibility of Remote Administration of the Uniform Data Set-Version 3 for Assessment of Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T09%3A33%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Feasibility%20of%20Remote%20Administration%20of%20the%20Uniform%20Data%20Set-Version%203%20for%20Assessment%20of%20Older%20Adults%20With%20Mild%20Cognitive%20Impairment%20and%20Alzheimer's%20Disease&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20clinical%20neuropsychology&rft.au=Sachs,%20Bonnie%20C&rft.date=2024-07-24&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=635&rft.epage=643&rft.pages=635-643&rft.issn=1873-5843&rft.eissn=1873-5843&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/arclin/acae001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2920572990%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2920572990&rft_id=info:pmid/38291734&rfr_iscdi=true