Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Spanish Validation of the Computerized Information Processing Assessment Battery (COGNITO).

INTRODUCTION: Mild cognitive impairment (CI) has an exponential increase in its prevalence and causes functional deficits and dependence. Its early detection allows for timely treatment and greater therapeutic efficacy. However, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is currently underdiagnosed. Although recent decades have seen a rise in computerized instruments for the detection and early diagnosis of MCI, showing numerous advantages over the classic paper-and-pencil methods, such as standardized stimulus presentation. However, their limitations include the use of self-administered application without professional supervision. Few of these instruments have Spanish-adapted versions. OBJECTIVE: To translate, adapt, and validate the computerized Information Processing Assessment Battery (COGNITO) battery in the Spanish population and to develop a portable administration system that facilitates its application in different settings. COGNITO was then administered to 232 Spanish participants (18-89 years) without cognitive impairment, after which preliminary normative data were obtained. RESULTS: Strong positive correlations were found between the main cognitive domains assessed by COGNITO and the variables of age, educational level, and MEC score. The gender variable only correlated with visuospatial skills, with men outperforming women. The test-retest correlations conducted after 4 weeks with 89 participants revealed adequate reliability coefficients ranging between.63 and.66 (visuospatial skills = 0.35). Internal consistency coefficients were satisfactory in Attention-Executive Functions and Memory domains. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish adaptation of COGNITO shows adequate psychometric characteristics of validity and reliability. The preliminary normative data provided may contribute to the early detection of cognitive impairments associated with both normal aging and various types of neurological pathology. This tool has great utility and versatility for neuropsychological practice.

Diagnostic accuracy, effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment and dementia screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates.

BACKGROUND: Illiteracy, a universal problem, limits the utilization of the most widely used short cognitive tests. Our objective was to assess and compare the effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment (CI) and dementia (DEM) screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates. METHODS: Phase III diagnostic test evaluation study was performed during one year in four Primary Care centers, prospectively including individuals with suspicion of CI or DEM. All underwent the Eurotest, Memory Alteration Test (M@T), and Phototest, applied in a balanced manner. Clinical, functional, and cognitive studies were independently performed in a blinded fashion in a Cognitive Behavioral Neurology Unit, and the gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists on the basis of these results. Effectiveness of tests was assessed as the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and the kappa index of concordance (k) with respect to gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices at the time and hospital accounts. RESULTS: The study included 139 individuals: 47 with DEM, 36 with CI, and 56 without CI. No significant differences in effectiveness were found among the tests. For DEM screening: Eurotest (k = 0.71 [0.59-0.83], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), M@T (k = 0.72 [0.60-0.84], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), Phototest (k = 0.70 [0.57-0.82], DA = 0.86 [0.79-0.91]). For CI screening: Eurotest (k = 0.67 [0.55-0.79]; DA = 0.83 [0.76-0.89]), M@T (k = 0.52 [0.37-0.67]; DA = 0.80 [0.72-0.86]), Phototest (k = 0.59 [0.46-0.72]; DA = 0.79 [0.71-0.86]). There were no differences in the cost of DEM screening, but the cost of CI screening was significantly higher with M@T (330.7 ± 177.1 €, mean ± sd) than with Eurotest (294.1 ± 195.0 €) or Phototest (296.0 ± 196. 5 €). Application time was shorter with Phototest (2.8 ± 0.8 min) than with Eurotest (7.1 ± 1.8 min) or M@T (6.8 ± 2.2 min). CONCLUSIONS: Eurotest, M@T, and Phototest are equally effective. Eurotest and Phototest are both less expensive options but Phototest is the most efficient, requiring the shortest application time.

Effectiveness and costs of phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening.

BACKGROUND: To assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS: A phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts. RESULTS: The study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ. CONCLUSION: MMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.