Tobias Bormann, Christoph P. Kaller, Caterina Kulyk, Nele Demeyere, Cornelius Weiller
{"title":"德国版牛津认知筛查(D-OCS):急性中风和混合神经系统样本的标准数据和验证。","authors":"Tobias Bormann, Christoph P. Kaller, Caterina Kulyk, Nele Demeyere, Cornelius Weiller","doi":"10.1111/jnp.12359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the frequency of stroke worldwide, tools for neuropsychological assessment of patients with acute stroke are needed to identify cognitive impairments, guide rehabilitation efforts and allow for a prognosis of outcome. However, requirements for assessment tools for acute cognitive deficits differ substantially from tests for chronic neuropsychological impairments and screening tools for suspected dementia. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) has been developed as a quick to administer neurocognitive screening for acute neurological patients providing information on various cognitive domains. It is available in different languages. The present study reports cut-off scores, parallel-test reliability and concurrent validity of the German version (D-OCS). Following standardized language adaptation and translation, the D-OCS was administered to 100 healthy individuals to generate cut-off scores (5th percentile). Subsequently, 88 neurological patients were assessed with both versions of the D-OCS as well as other tests to evaluate reliability and validity of the D-OCS subscales. In a further study, the D-OCS was compared to the MoCA test in 65 acute stroke patients revealing comparable sensitivity but also differences between both tools. The cut-off scores were comparable to other international versions of the OCS. Intraclass correlations were highly significant and document reliability of the D-OCS subtests. Scores on subtests correlated significantly with independent tests securing validity. Comparison with the MoCA revealed comparable sensitivity and specificity. The D-OCS is a reliable and valid assessment tool well suited for patients with acute stroke. Differences to the MoCA test are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuropsychology","volume":"18 3","pages":"377-390"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12359","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The German version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (D-OCS): Normative data and validation in acute stroke and a mixed neurological sample\",\"authors\":\"Tobias Bormann, Christoph P. Kaller, Caterina Kulyk, Nele Demeyere, Cornelius Weiller\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jnp.12359\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Given the frequency of stroke worldwide, tools for neuropsychological assessment of patients with acute stroke are needed to identify cognitive impairments, guide rehabilitation efforts and allow for a prognosis of outcome. However, requirements for assessment tools for acute cognitive deficits differ substantially from tests for chronic neuropsychological impairments and screening tools for suspected dementia. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) has been developed as a quick to administer neurocognitive screening for acute neurological patients providing information on various cognitive domains. It is available in different languages. The present study reports cut-off scores, parallel-test reliability and concurrent validity of the German version (D-OCS). Following standardized language adaptation and translation, the D-OCS was administered to 100 healthy individuals to generate cut-off scores (5th percentile). Subsequently, 88 neurological patients were assessed with both versions of the D-OCS as well as other tests to evaluate reliability and validity of the D-OCS subscales. In a further study, the D-OCS was compared to the MoCA test in 65 acute stroke patients revealing comparable sensitivity but also differences between both tools. The cut-off scores were comparable to other international versions of the OCS. Intraclass correlations were highly significant and document reliability of the D-OCS subtests. Scores on subtests correlated significantly with independent tests securing validity. Comparison with the MoCA revealed comparable sensitivity and specificity. The D-OCS is a reliable and valid assessment tool well suited for patients with acute stroke. Differences to the MoCA test are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\"18 3\",\"pages\":\"377-390\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12359\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12359\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12359","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The German version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (D-OCS): Normative data and validation in acute stroke and a mixed neurological sample
Given the frequency of stroke worldwide, tools for neuropsychological assessment of patients with acute stroke are needed to identify cognitive impairments, guide rehabilitation efforts and allow for a prognosis of outcome. However, requirements for assessment tools for acute cognitive deficits differ substantially from tests for chronic neuropsychological impairments and screening tools for suspected dementia. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) has been developed as a quick to administer neurocognitive screening for acute neurological patients providing information on various cognitive domains. It is available in different languages. The present study reports cut-off scores, parallel-test reliability and concurrent validity of the German version (D-OCS). Following standardized language adaptation and translation, the D-OCS was administered to 100 healthy individuals to generate cut-off scores (5th percentile). Subsequently, 88 neurological patients were assessed with both versions of the D-OCS as well as other tests to evaluate reliability and validity of the D-OCS subscales. In a further study, the D-OCS was compared to the MoCA test in 65 acute stroke patients revealing comparable sensitivity but also differences between both tools. The cut-off scores were comparable to other international versions of the OCS. Intraclass correlations were highly significant and document reliability of the D-OCS subtests. Scores on subtests correlated significantly with independent tests securing validity. Comparison with the MoCA revealed comparable sensitivity and specificity. The D-OCS is a reliable and valid assessment tool well suited for patients with acute stroke. Differences to the MoCA test are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Neuropsychology publishes original contributions to scientific knowledge in neuropsychology including:
• clinical and research studies with neurological, psychiatric and psychological patient populations in all age groups
• behavioural or pharmacological treatment regimes
• cognitive experimentation and neuroimaging
• multidisciplinary approach embracing areas such as developmental psychology, neurology, psychiatry, physiology, endocrinology, pharmacology and imaging science
The following types of paper are invited:
• papers reporting original empirical investigations
• theoretical papers; provided that these are sufficiently related to empirical data
• review articles, which need not be exhaustive, but which should give an interpretation of the state of research in a given field and, where appropriate, identify its clinical implications
• brief reports and comments
• case reports
• fast-track papers (included in the issue following acceptation) reaction and rebuttals (short reactions to publications in JNP followed by an invited rebuttal of the original authors)
• special issues.