Search

OBJECTIVE: We assessed agreement between patient- and informant-report on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function – Adult (BRIEF-A) in patients with primary brain tumors (PBT) and differences on BRIEF-A in neurocognitive (intact v. impaired), psychological (asymptomatic v. distressed), and functional (independent v. needing assistance) categories using both patient- and informant-report. METHOD: patients with PBT (n=102) completed neuropsychological evaluations including the BRIEF-A, clinical interview, neurocognitive tests, and mood questionnaires. Correlations between the BRIEF-A and Informant (n=39) were conducted. Differences in patient and informant BRIEF-A indices were investigated across five classifications: neurocognitive functioning, psychological functioning, medication management, appointment management, and finance management. RESULTS: Patient and informant BRIEF indices were correlated. There was no difference on BRIEF-A or Informant indices for intact v. impaired neurocognitive status. Higher BRIEF-A and Informant indices were observed among psychologically distressed v. asymptomatic patients. Results showed higher BRIEF indices among those requiring assistance with medication, appointments, and finances. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and informants agreed in their reports of executive function (EF). These reports, while not different in neurocognitive classification, were different in psychological functioning and in those needing assistance with instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Patient- and informant-reported EF may provide important data regarding psychological and IADL functioning in this population.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based practice in neuropsychology involves the use of validated tests, cutoff scores, and interpretive algorithms to identify clinically significant cognitive deficits. Recently, actuarial neuropsychological criteria (ANP) for identifying mild cognitive impairment were developed, demonstrating improved criterion validity and temporal stability compared to conventional criteria (CNP). However, benefits of the ANP criteria have not been investigated in non-research, clinical settings with varied etiologies, severities, and comorbidities. This study compared the utility of CNP and ANP criteria using data from a memory disorders clinic. METHOD: Data from 500 non-demented older adults evaluated in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center memory disorders clinic were retrospectively analyzed. We applied CNP and ANP criteria to the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, compared outcomes to consensus clinical diagnoses, and conducted cluster analyses of scores from each group. RESULTS: The majority (72%) of patients met both the CNP and ANP criteria and both approaches were susceptible to confounding factors such as invalid test data and mood disturbance. However, the CNP approach mis-labeled impairment in more patients with non-cognitive disorders and intact cognition. Comparatively, the ANP approach misdiagnosed patients with depression at a third of the rate and those with no diagnosis at nearly half the rate of CNP. Cluster analyses revealed groups with: 1) minimal impairment, 2) amnestic impairment, and 3) multi-domain impairment. The ANP approach yielded subgroups with more distinct neuropsychological profiles. CONCLUSIONS: We replicated previous findings that the CNP approach is over-inclusive, particularly for those determined to have no cognitive disorder by a consensus team. The ANP approach yielded fewer false positives and better diagnostic specificity than the CNP. Despite clear benefits of the ANP vs. CNP, there was substantial overlap in their performance in this heterogeneous sample. These findings highlight the critical role of clinical interpretation when wielding these empirically-derived tools.