Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Practice effects in mild cognitive impairment: A validation of Calamia et al. (2012).

Authors
  • Duff, Kevin1
  • Hammers, Dustin B1
  • 1 Center for Alzheimer's Care, Imaging and Research, Department of Neurology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Type
Published Article
Journal
The Clinical neuropsychologist
Publication Date
Apr 01, 2022
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
571–583
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2020.1781933
PMID: 32594886
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

In a meta-analysis examining practice effects on repeated neuropsychological testing, Calamia et al. (2012) provided information to predict practice effects in healthy and clinical samples across a range of cognitive domains. However, these estimates have not been validated. This study used these prediction estimate calculations to predict follow-up scores across one year on a brief battery of neuropsychological tests in a sample of 93 older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. The predicted follow-up scores were compared to observed follow-up scores. Using Calamia et al. model's intercept, age, retest interval, clinical status, and specific cognitive tests, three of the seven observed follow-up scores in this cognitive battery were significantly lower than the Calamia et al. predicted follow-up scores. Differences between individual participants' observed and predicted follow-up scores were more striking. For example, on Delayed Recall of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised, 40% of the sample had Calamia et al. predicted scores that were one or more standard deviations above their observed scores. These differences were most notable on tests that were not in Calamia et al.'s cognitive battery, suggesting the meta-analysis results may not generalize as well to other tests. Although Calamia et al. provided a method for predicting practice effects and follow-up scores, these results raise caution when using them in MCI, especially on cognitive tests that were not in their meta-analysis.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times