Generational differences in clock drawing test performance.

IF 3 4区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Bluyé DeMessie, Ava Tsapatsaris, Leigh Rudberg, Simone Glajchen, Molly E Zimmerman, Richard B Lipton, Michael L Lipton
{"title":"Generational differences in clock drawing test performance.","authors":"Bluyé DeMessie, Ava Tsapatsaris, Leigh Rudberg, Simone Glajchen, Molly E Zimmerman, Richard B Lipton, Michael L Lipton","doi":"10.1017/S1355617726101830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The clock drawing test is widely used in clinical neurological and neuropsychological assessment. We hypothesized that younger adults would have greater problems with clock drawing than older adults, perhaps due to decreasing analog clock use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional study analyzing clock drawing performance and cognitive function across four generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers). Participants included 92 adults divided into two generations (63 younger [18-42 years old] and 29 older [43-77 years old]) assessed between October 2022 and December 2024. Participants were screened to exclude conditions affecting cognition. The primary outcome was performance errors in clock drawing (e.g., writing \"11:10\" instead of drawing an analog clock, or placing hands incorrectly), assessed using standardized criteria. Cognitive function was assessed using eight computerized tests (CogState) measuring processing speed, attention, executive function, visuospatial memory, and verbal memory. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated three cognitive domain composites: Speed/Attention, Executive/Spatial, and Verbal Memory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Performance errors were significantly more prevalent among younger participants compared with older participants (<i>p</i> = .016; risk ratio, 4.45). The effect size was large (Cohen's <i>h</i> = .63). The generation effect was stronger (OR = 28.66, <i>p</i> = .003) after controlling for CFA-validated cognitive domain composites. This provides strong evidence that generational differences are independent of cognitive abilities.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Younger adults demonstrate significantly higher rates of clock drawing errors compared with older adults, independent of cognitive performance. These findings suggest a need for generation-specific or age adjusted norms in clock drawing test interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"177-183"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12912772/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617726101830","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The clock drawing test is widely used in clinical neurological and neuropsychological assessment. We hypothesized that younger adults would have greater problems with clock drawing than older adults, perhaps due to decreasing analog clock use.

Methods: Cross-sectional study analyzing clock drawing performance and cognitive function across four generations (Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Baby Boomers). Participants included 92 adults divided into two generations (63 younger [18-42 years old] and 29 older [43-77 years old]) assessed between October 2022 and December 2024. Participants were screened to exclude conditions affecting cognition. The primary outcome was performance errors in clock drawing (e.g., writing "11:10" instead of drawing an analog clock, or placing hands incorrectly), assessed using standardized criteria. Cognitive function was assessed using eight computerized tests (CogState) measuring processing speed, attention, executive function, visuospatial memory, and verbal memory. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) validated three cognitive domain composites: Speed/Attention, Executive/Spatial, and Verbal Memory.

Results: Performance errors were significantly more prevalent among younger participants compared with older participants (p = .016; risk ratio, 4.45). The effect size was large (Cohen's h = .63). The generation effect was stronger (OR = 28.66, p = .003) after controlling for CFA-validated cognitive domain composites. This provides strong evidence that generational differences are independent of cognitive abilities.

Conclusions: Younger adults demonstrate significantly higher rates of clock drawing errors compared with older adults, independent of cognitive performance. These findings suggest a need for generation-specific or age adjusted norms in clock drawing test interpretation.

时钟绘制测试性能的代际差异。
目的:时钟绘制试验在临床神经学和神经心理学评价中得到广泛应用。我们假设年轻人在绘制时钟方面比老年人有更大的问题,这可能是由于模拟时钟使用的减少。方法:采用横断面研究方法,分析Z世代、千禧一代、X世代、婴儿潮一代4代人的时钟绘制表现和认知功能。参与者包括92名成年人,分为两代(63名年轻人[18-42岁]和29名老年人[43-77岁]),评估时间为2022年10月至2024年12月。参与者被筛选以排除影响认知的条件。主要结果是时钟绘制中的性能错误(例如,书写“11:10”而不是绘制模拟时钟,或者错误地放置指针),使用标准化标准进行评估。认知功能评估采用8个计算机化测试(CogState),测量处理速度、注意力、执行功能、视觉空间记忆和言语记忆。验证性因子分析(CFA)验证了三个认知领域的复合材料:速度/注意力,执行/空间和言语记忆。结果:与老年参与者相比,年轻参与者的表现错误更为普遍(p = 0.016;风险比为4.45)。效应量很大(Cohen’s h = .63)。在控制cfa验证的认知领域复合材料后,生成效应更强(OR = 28.66, p = 0.003)。这为代际差异与认知能力无关提供了强有力的证据。结论:与老年人相比,年轻人表现出明显更高的时钟绘制错误率,这与认知表现无关。这些发现表明,在时钟绘制测试解释中需要特定世代或年龄调整的规范。
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
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.
×
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