用于创伤性脑损伤的简短认知筛查工具的可靠性和有效性:系统综述。

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Jessica McLaren, Alexander Fradera, Breda Cullen
{"title":"用于创伤性脑损伤的简短认知筛查工具的可靠性和有效性:系统综述。","authors":"Jessica McLaren, Alexander Fradera, Breda Cullen","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2024.2357850","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Reliable and valid cognitive screening tools are essential in the assessment of those with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, there is no consensus about which tool should be used in clinical practice. This systematic review assessed psychometric properties of cognitive screening tools for detecting cognitive impairment in TBI. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed validation studies of a cognitive screening tool(s); with a sample of adults aged 18-80 diagnosed with TBI (mild-severe); and with psychometrics consistent with COSMIN guidelines. Published literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on 27 January 2022. A narrative synthesis was performed. Thirty-four studies evaluated the psychometric properties of a total of 22 cognitive screening tools, in a variety of languages. Properties assessed included structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, criterion validity (or diagnostic test accuracy), convergent/divergent validity, and discriminant validity. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were the most widely validated cognitive screening tools for use in TBI. The MoCA had the most promising evidence of its psychometric properties, which has implications for clinical practice. Future research should aim to follow standard criteria for psychometric studies to allow meaningful comparisons across the literature.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The reliability and validity of brief cognitive screening tools used in traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jessica McLaren, Alexander Fradera, Breda Cullen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09602011.2024.2357850\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Reliable and valid cognitive screening tools are essential in the assessment of those with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, there is no consensus about which tool should be used in clinical practice. This systematic review assessed psychometric properties of cognitive screening tools for detecting cognitive impairment in TBI. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed validation studies of a cognitive screening tool(s); with a sample of adults aged 18-80 diagnosed with TBI (mild-severe); and with psychometrics consistent with COSMIN guidelines. Published literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on 27 January 2022. A narrative synthesis was performed. Thirty-four studies evaluated the psychometric properties of a total of 22 cognitive screening tools, in a variety of languages. Properties assessed included structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, criterion validity (or diagnostic test accuracy), convergent/divergent validity, and discriminant validity. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were the most widely validated cognitive screening tools for use in TBI. The MoCA had the most promising evidence of its psychometric properties, which has implications for clinical practice. Future research should aim to follow standard criteria for psychometric studies to allow meaningful comparisons across the literature.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2357850\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2357850","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

可靠有效的认知筛查工具对于评估创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者至关重要。然而,对于在临床实践中应使用哪种工具还没有达成共识。本系统性综述评估了用于检测创伤性脑损伤认知障碍的认知筛查工具的心理测量特性。纳入标准为:认知筛查工具的同行评审验证研究;样本为 18-80 岁被诊断为 TBI(轻度-重度)的成年人;心理测量学符合 COSMIN 指南。2022 年 1 月 27 日,从 MEDLINE、Web of Science Core Collection、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 PsycINFO 中检索了已发表的文献。进行了叙述性综合。34 项研究共评估了 22 种认知筛查工具的心理测量特性,这些工具使用了多种语言。评估的特性包括结构效度、内部一致性、可靠性、标准效度(或诊断测试的准确性)、收敛/发散效度和判别效度。蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)和迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)是用于创伤性脑损伤的最广泛验证的认知筛查工具。MoCA 在心理测量特性方面的证据最有希望,这对临床实践具有重要意义。未来的研究应遵循心理测量研究的标准,以便对文献进行有意义的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The reliability and validity of brief cognitive screening tools used in traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.

Reliable and valid cognitive screening tools are essential in the assessment of those with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Yet, there is no consensus about which tool should be used in clinical practice. This systematic review assessed psychometric properties of cognitive screening tools for detecting cognitive impairment in TBI. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed validation studies of a cognitive screening tool(s); with a sample of adults aged 18-80 diagnosed with TBI (mild-severe); and with psychometrics consistent with COSMIN guidelines. Published literature was retrieved from MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on 27 January 2022. A narrative synthesis was performed. Thirty-four studies evaluated the psychometric properties of a total of 22 cognitive screening tools, in a variety of languages. Properties assessed included structural validity, internal consistency, reliability, criterion validity (or diagnostic test accuracy), convergent/divergent validity, and discriminant validity. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) were the most widely validated cognitive screening tools for use in TBI. The MoCA had the most promising evidence of its psychometric properties, which has implications for clinical practice. Future research should aim to follow standard criteria for psychometric studies to allow meaningful comparisons across the literature.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信