Approximately two-thirds of adults in the United States over the age of 70 have HL and this number is expected to nearly double in the next four decades ( Goman et al., 2017). Hearing Loss (HL) and dementia are two of the most prevalent health concerns for the aging population ( Kravitz et al., 2012 Olusanya et al., 2014 Rigters et al., 2018 Ogawa et al., 2019). Our work also indicates that a modified ISDA retrieval score may be beneficial for evaluating CI users although additional work addressing the clinical relevance of this is still needed. We demonstrate that the ISDA can be successfully applied to CI users for the quantification and characterization of delayed recall ability however, future work addressing lower performing CI users, and comparing to normal hearing controls is needed to determine the extent of potential translational applications. Lastly, ISDA retrieval only related to CVLT-3 measures when modified.Ĭonclusion: Performance on the MoCA and CVLT-3 in a high performing CI patient population were not related. Consolidation, which is only distinctly defined by the ISDA, related to CVLT-3 cued delay recall performance but not free delay recall performance. Encoding performance for both the CVLT-3 and ISDA were related. Results: The original MoCA score and MoCA delayed recall subtest score did not relate to performance on any CVLT-3 measures regardless of scoring metric applied (i.e., traditional or ISDA). For the CVLT-3, both the traditional scoring and a newer scoring method, the Item-Specific Deficit Approach (ISDA), were employed. Methods: The MoCA and CVLT-3 were administered to 18 high-performing CI users. To better understand the underlying processes associated with delayed recall in CI users, we administered the MoCA and the California Verbal Learning Test, Third Edition (CVLT-3), which provides a more comprehensive assessment of delayed recall ability. Purpose: Recent studies using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) suggest delayed recall is challenging for cochlear implant (CI) users. 3College of Medicine, University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, United States.2Department of Psychology, Bellevue College, Bellevue, WA, United States.1Auditory Research Laboratory, Center for Hearing and Skull Base Surgery, Swedish Neuroscience Institute, Seattle, WA, United States.This volume will be of use both to clinicians and to professionals in disciplines allied to medicine who are called upon to assess patients with possible cognitive disorders, including neurologists, old age psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, primary care physicians, dementia support workers, and members of memory assessment teams.Nadav Brumer 1 Elizabeth Elkins 1 Jennifer Parada 2 Jake Hillyer 3 Alexandra Parbery-Clark 1* Diagnostic tests which identify cases of dementia therefore have an important role.Įxpert authors from around the world equip the reader of Cognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach with clear instructions on the usage of each screening instrument, its strengths and weaknesses, the time required for administration, and rules on scoring, such as how to correct for variations in the patient’s age or education, and suggested cut-off scores.Ĭognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach is a handy, illustrated guide and a valuable diagnostic aid for practitioners working closely with patients with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Despite this, many patients with dementia never receive a formal diagnosis, with implications for their appropriate care and management. Dementia and cognitive disorders are now recognised as an increasing public health problem, both in terms of patient numbers and cost, as populations age throughout the world. Cognitive Screening Instruments: A Practical Approach provides a practical and structured overview of some of the most commonly used and easily available cognitive screening instruments applicable in the outpatient clinic and bedside setting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |