Grooved Pegboard Test as a measure of executive functioning.

The Grooved Pegboard Test (GPT) is used primarily as a measure of motor functioning, but some research indicates that performance on this test my also reflect cognitive factors, particularly attention and executive functioning. The aim of this study was to examine rule violations as a possible quantifiable measure of executive functioning, particularly inhibitory control. In a sample of 82 veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation at a Virginia (VA) outpatient clinic, we recorded instances of two types of rule violations: using the incorrect hand during insertion and placing pegs out of sequence. Criterion measures included the Trail Making Test, the Tower of London, and the Stroop Color and Word Test. As hypothesized, total number of rule violations correlated moderately to strongly with the criterion measures. Notably, 60% of individuals committing two or more rule violations were impaired on at least two of the criterion measures, whereas only 17% of individuals without any rule violations were impaired on two criterion measures. Rule violations during the GPT provide valuable supplementary data for assessing executive dysfunction with no additional task demand or time cost. These data suggest that making two or more errors should raise suspicion of executive dysfunction.

Self- and Informant-Reported Memory Complaints: Frequency and Severity in Cognitively Intact Individuals and those with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Neurodegenerative Dementias.

BACKGROUND: Subjective memory complaints (SMCs) are incorporated into the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and neurodegenerative dementias; however, the relative frequency of SMCs in cognitively intact older adults and those with different types of dementia is poorly understood. Similarly, the concordance between self- versus informant-reported SMCs has not been compared across different diagnostic groups. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of self-reported (Objective 1) and informant-reported (Objective 2) SMCs in cognitively intact adults or those diagnosed with MCI or a neurodegenerative dementia. Agreement between participant and informant complaints was also evaluated (Objective 3). METHODS: Baseline evaluation data were drawn from 488 participants (Mage = 70.49 years; Medu = 15.62 years) diagnosed as cognitively intact, non-amnestic MCI, amnestic single domain MCI, amnestic multi-domain MCI, possible/probable Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies, or frontotemporal dementia. Participants and their informants completed the Memory Assessment Clinic Questionnaire. RESULTS: One-way ANCOVAs controlling for age, education, and depression revealed no group differences in severity of self-reported SMCs. In contrast, informant memory ratings followed the expected clinical pattern, with comparable and most impaired ratings given to participants with any dementia diagnosis, followed by those with any MCI diagnosis, followed by cognitively intact participants. There was inconsistent agreement between self- and informant-reported SMC ratings in any of the impaired groups. CONCLUSIONS: Given greater diagnostic specificity and internal consistency of informant report, clinicians should weigh this information more heavily than self-report in the diagnostic process.