The Chinese version of the Short Cognitive Performance Test (SKT) - psychometric criteria and cross-validation.

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Melina Arnold, Liang Cui, Mark Stemmler, Qi-Hao Guo
{"title":"The Chinese version of the Short Cognitive Performance Test (SKT) - psychometric criteria and cross-validation.","authors":"Melina Arnold, Liang Cui, Mark Stemmler, Qi-Hao Guo","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2025.2599256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The new Chinese version of the SKT (Syndrom-Kurz-Test) Short Cognitive Performance Test aims to detect early cognitive impairment and is a promising addition to neuropsychological test batteries in China and suitable for Chinese speaking patients. This study has three aims: 1. to assess whether the SKT's diagnostic accuracy is comparable to established cognitive impairment tests (e.g. Addenbrooke´s cognitive examination-III (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B)); 2. to examine whether the three tests show intra-individual differences according to different types of mild cognitive impairment (single-domain amnestic MCI, semantic MCI and multiple-domain amnestic MCI); 3. to determine whether these tests distinguish between individuals with no cognitive impairment and those with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). The validation sample included 1038 older adults (mean age = 70.04, SD = 6.05) from the Chinese Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease Study (C-PAS). Participants underwent cognitive testing and received consensus diagnoses of normal cognition, MCI, or dementia. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each test. ANOVAs examined differences between MCI subtypes, and t-tests assessed group differences between normal cognition and SCD. Results: The SKT showed the highest discrimination between normal cognition and cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), with a sensitivity of 85.4% and specificity of 69.8%. All three tests demonstrated significant score differences across MCI subtypes. Additionally, all tests significantly distinguished individuals with SCD from those without cognitive impairment (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Conclusions: The new Chinese produced weaker results than the established tests. However, given its strengths, it could be a useful tool for identifying cognitive impairment in certain situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"439-450"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2025.2599256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The new Chinese version of the SKT (Syndrom-Kurz-Test) Short Cognitive Performance Test aims to detect early cognitive impairment and is a promising addition to neuropsychological test batteries in China and suitable for Chinese speaking patients. This study has three aims: 1. to assess whether the SKT's diagnostic accuracy is comparable to established cognitive impairment tests (e.g. Addenbrooke´s cognitive examination-III (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Basic (MoCA-B)); 2. to examine whether the three tests show intra-individual differences according to different types of mild cognitive impairment (single-domain amnestic MCI, semantic MCI and multiple-domain amnestic MCI); 3. to determine whether these tests distinguish between individuals with no cognitive impairment and those with subjective cognitive decline (SCD). The validation sample included 1038 older adults (mean age = 70.04, SD = 6.05) from the Chinese Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease Study (C-PAS). Participants underwent cognitive testing and received consensus diagnoses of normal cognition, MCI, or dementia. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each test. ANOVAs examined differences between MCI subtypes, and t-tests assessed group differences between normal cognition and SCD. Results: The SKT showed the highest discrimination between normal cognition and cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), with a sensitivity of 85.4% and specificity of 69.8%. All three tests demonstrated significant score differences across MCI subtypes. Additionally, all tests significantly distinguished individuals with SCD from those without cognitive impairment (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The new Chinese produced weaker results than the established tests. However, given its strengths, it could be a useful tool for identifying cognitive impairment in certain situations.

中文版短认知能力测验——心理测量标准与交叉验证。
SKT (syndrome - kurz -Test)短认知能力测试的新中文版旨在发现早期认知障碍,是中国神经心理测试系统的一个有希望的补充,适用于讲中文的患者。本研究有三个目的:1。评估SKT的诊断准确性是否与现有的认知障碍测试(如阿登布鲁克认知测试- iii (ACE-III)和蒙特利尔认知评估-基础(MoCA-B))相当;2. 根据不同轻度认知障碍类型(单域遗忘型轻度认知损伤、语义型轻度认知损伤和多域遗忘型轻度认知损伤),考察三项测试是否存在个体内差异;3. 以确定这些测试是否能区分无认知障碍和主观认知衰退(SCD)的个体。验证样本包括来自中国临床前阿尔茨海默病研究(C-PAS)的1038名老年人(平均年龄= 70.04,SD = 6.05)。参与者接受认知测试,并接受认知正常、轻度认知障碍或痴呆的一致诊断。计算每个试验的敏感性和特异性。方差分析检验MCI亚型之间的差异,t检验评估正常认知和SCD之间的组间差异。结果:SKT在正常认知和认知障碍(MCI或痴呆)之间的区分程度最高,敏感性为85.4%,特异性为69.8%。所有三种测试都显示出MCI亚型之间的显著得分差异。此外,所有测试都能显著区分SCD患者和无认知障碍患者(p
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书