牛津认知屏幕:一个批判性的审查和独立的心理测量评估

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Donnchadh Murphy, Emily Cornford, Alice Higginson, Alyson Norman, Rebecca Long, Rupert Noad
{"title":"牛津认知屏幕:一个批判性的审查和独立的心理测量评估","authors":"Donnchadh Murphy,&nbsp;Emily Cornford,&nbsp;Alice Higginson,&nbsp;Alyson Norman,&nbsp;Rebecca Long,&nbsp;Rupert Noad","doi":"10.1111/jnp.12318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Oxford cognitive screen (OCS) is a stroke-specific cognitive screening assessment. Although the test developers have provided psychometric information for the assessment, the OCS has received minimal external scrutiny, with which to triangulate the underpinning psychometrics. The purpose of this study is to provide a critical review and independent validation of the OCS. This study analysed data from an anonymised clinical database, which consisted of 316 patients who were assessed using the OCS on an Acute Stroke Unit. The rates of impairment on tests of memory and receptive communication were lower than expectation, suggesting that these subtests may be relatively insensitive. Patients with aphasia were more likely to be unable to categorised as impaired on non-language tests, suggesting that they remain sensitive to language processing or non-dominant hand usage. Some of the subtests of the OCS achieve high retest reliability, which makes them good candidates for measuring cognitive change over time. Although the OCS has many advantages, it is also important to adequately consider its limitations, that is insensitivity to memory problems, the potential confounding impact of non-dominant hand usage, and the potential that some tests may sample overall cognitive ability instead of domain-specific functioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12318","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oxford cognitive screen: A critical review and independent psychometric evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Donnchadh Murphy,&nbsp;Emily Cornford,&nbsp;Alice Higginson,&nbsp;Alyson Norman,&nbsp;Rebecca Long,&nbsp;Rupert Noad\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jnp.12318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Oxford cognitive screen (OCS) is a stroke-specific cognitive screening assessment. Although the test developers have provided psychometric information for the assessment, the OCS has received minimal external scrutiny, with which to triangulate the underpinning psychometrics. The purpose of this study is to provide a critical review and independent validation of the OCS. This study analysed data from an anonymised clinical database, which consisted of 316 patients who were assessed using the OCS on an Acute Stroke Unit. The rates of impairment on tests of memory and receptive communication were lower than expectation, suggesting that these subtests may be relatively insensitive. Patients with aphasia were more likely to be unable to categorised as impaired on non-language tests, suggesting that they remain sensitive to language processing or non-dominant hand usage. Some of the subtests of the OCS achieve high retest reliability, which makes them good candidates for measuring cognitive change over time. Although the OCS has many advantages, it is also important to adequately consider its limitations, that is insensitivity to memory problems, the potential confounding impact of non-dominant hand usage, and the potential that some tests may sample overall cognitive ability instead of domain-specific functioning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12318\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12318\",\"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.12318","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

牛津认知筛查(OCS)是一种针对中风的认知筛查评估。尽管测试开发者为评估提供了心理测量信息,但OCS只接受了很少的外部审查,从而无法对基础心理测量进行三角测量。本研究的目的是对OCS进行批判性审查和独立验证。本研究分析了来自匿名临床数据库的数据,该数据库由316名患者组成,这些患者在急性卒中单元使用OCS进行评估。记忆和接受性沟通测试的损伤率低于预期,表明这些子测试可能相对不敏感。失语症患者更有可能无法在非语言测试中被归类为受损,这表明他们对语言处理或非惯用手的使用仍然敏感。OCS的一些子测试达到了很高的重测信度,这使它们成为衡量随时间变化的认知变化的良好候选者。尽管OCS有许多优点,但充分考虑其局限性也很重要,如对记忆问题不敏感,非惯用手使用的潜在混淆影响,以及一些测试可能抽样整体认知能力而不是特定领域功能的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Oxford cognitive screen: A critical review and independent psychometric evaluation

The Oxford cognitive screen (OCS) is a stroke-specific cognitive screening assessment. Although the test developers have provided psychometric information for the assessment, the OCS has received minimal external scrutiny, with which to triangulate the underpinning psychometrics. The purpose of this study is to provide a critical review and independent validation of the OCS. This study analysed data from an anonymised clinical database, which consisted of 316 patients who were assessed using the OCS on an Acute Stroke Unit. The rates of impairment on tests of memory and receptive communication were lower than expectation, suggesting that these subtests may be relatively insensitive. Patients with aphasia were more likely to be unable to categorised as impaired on non-language tests, suggesting that they remain sensitive to language processing or non-dominant hand usage. Some of the subtests of the OCS achieve high retest reliability, which makes them good candidates for measuring cognitive change over time. Although the OCS has many advantages, it is also important to adequately consider its limitations, that is insensitivity to memory problems, the potential confounding impact of non-dominant hand usage, and the potential that some tests may sample overall cognitive ability instead of domain-specific functioning.

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
Journal of Neuropsychology
Journal of Neuropsychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
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