Validation of the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) scale in CCAS patients and cerebellar controls.

IF 2.6 4区心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society Pub Date : 2025-07-14 DOI:10.1017/S1355617725101033

Stacha F I Reumers, Roderick P P W M Maas, Veerle J M van den Brandt, Lotte A H Kocken, Iris M Wiegand, Frank-Erik de Leeuw, Dennis J L G Schutter, Bart P C van de Warrenburg, Roy P C Kessels

{"title":"Validation of the cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) scale in CCAS patients and cerebellar controls.","authors":"Stacha F I Reumers, Roderick P P W M Maas, Veerle J M van den Brandt, Lotte A H Kocken, Iris M Wiegand, Frank-Erik de Leeuw, Dennis J L G Schutter, Bart P C van de Warrenburg, Roy P C Kessels","doi":"10.1017/S1355617725101033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) scale has been developed to screen for possible cognitive and affective impairments in cerebellar patients, but previous studies stressed concerns regarding insufficient specificity of the scale. Also, direct comparisons of CCAS scale performance between cerebellar patients with and without CCAS are currently lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the CCAS scale in cerebellar patients.Method: In this study, cerebellar patients with CCAS (n = 49), without CCAS (n = 30), and healthy controls (n = 32) were included. The Dutch/Flemish version of the CCAS scale was evaluated in terms of validity and reliability using an extensive neuropsychological assessment as the gold standard for CCAS. Correlations were examined between the CCAS scale and possible confounding factors. Additionally, a correction for dysarthria was applied to timed neuropsychological tests to explore the influence of dysarthria on test outcomes.Results: Cerebellar patients with CCAS performed significantly worse on the CCAS scale compared to cerebellar controls. Sensitivity was acceptable, but specificity was insufficient due to high false-positive rates. Correlations were found between outcomes of the scale and both education and age. Although dysarthria did not affect the validity of the CCAS scale, it may influence timed neuropsychological test outcomes.Conclusions: Evaluation of the CCAS scale revealed insufficient specificity. Our findings call for age- and education-dependent reference values, which may improve the validity and usability of the scale. Dysarthria might be a confounding factor in timed test items and should be considered to prevent misclassification.","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617725101033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome (CCAS) scale has been developed to screen for possible cognitive and affective impairments in cerebellar patients, but previous studies stressed concerns regarding insufficient specificity of the scale. Also, direct comparisons of CCAS scale performance between cerebellar patients with and without CCAS are currently lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of the CCAS scale in cerebellar patients.

Method: In this study, cerebellar patients with CCAS (n = 49), without CCAS (n = 30), and healthy controls (n = 32) were included. The Dutch/Flemish version of the CCAS scale was evaluated in terms of validity and reliability using an extensive neuropsychological assessment as the gold standard for CCAS. Correlations were examined between the CCAS scale and possible confounding factors. Additionally, a correction for dysarthria was applied to timed neuropsychological tests to explore the influence of dysarthria on test outcomes.

Results: Cerebellar patients with CCAS performed significantly worse on the CCAS scale compared to cerebellar controls. Sensitivity was acceptable, but specificity was insufficient due to high false-positive rates. Correlations were found between outcomes of the scale and both education and age. Although dysarthria did not affect the validity of the CCAS scale, it may influence timed neuropsychological test outcomes.

Conclusions: Evaluation of the CCAS scale revealed insufficient specificity. Our findings call for age- and education-dependent reference values, which may improve the validity and usability of the scale. Dysarthria might be a confounding factor in timed test items and should be considered to prevent misclassification.

查看原文本刊更多论文

小脑认知情感综合征（CCAS）量表在CCAS患者和小脑对照组中的验证。

目的：小脑认知情感综合征（CCAS）量表被用于筛查小脑患者可能存在的认知和情感障碍，但以往的研究强调该量表的特异性不足。此外，目前还缺乏对有和没有CCAS的小脑患者CCAS量表表现的直接比较。本研究的目的是评估CCAS量表在小脑患者中的有效性。方法：本研究分为有CCAS的小脑患者49例、无CCAS的小脑患者30例和健康对照组32例。荷兰/佛兰德语版本的CCAS量表在效度和信度方面进行了评估，使用广泛的神经心理学评估作为CCAS的金标准。检验CCAS量表与可能的混杂因素之间的相关性。此外，对构音障碍的纠正应用于定时神经心理测试，以探讨构音障碍对测试结果的影响。结果：小脑CCAS患者在CCAS量表上的表现明显差于小脑对照组。敏感性是可以接受的，但由于假阳性率高，特异性不足。量表的结果与教育程度和年龄都有相关性。构音障碍不影响CCAS量表的效度，但可能影响定时神经心理测试结果。结论：CCAS量表的评估显示特异性不足。我们的研究结果需要年龄和教育依赖的参考值，这可能会提高量表的有效性和可用性。构音障碍可能是时间测试项目的混淆因素，应考虑防止错误分类。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 医学-精神病学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

3.80%

发文量

185

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate. To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.