Search

The predictive abilities of computer-based screening devices for early cognitive decline (CD) in older adults have rarely been longitudinally examined. Therefore, this study examined the ability of CogEvo, a short-duration, computer-based cognitive screening device requiring little professional involvement, to predict CD among community-dwelling older adults. We determined whether 119 individuals aged ≥ 65 years living in Japanese rural communities who scored ≥ 24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at baseline developed CD by annually administering the MMSE to them. CD was defined as an MMSE score of ≤23. At baseline, the overall CogEvo judgment grade, with lower grades indicating better cognitive function, was calculated from the results of various cognitive tasks. Over 2 years, 10 participants developed CD. Participants with grades of 4 had a higher percentage of CD cases than those with grades of ≤3 (p < 0.01). This relationship remained significant after controlling for possible confounders, including the MMSE score at baseline. The sensitivity and specificity of the CogEvo grade cutoff of 4 were 50.0% and 93.6%, respectively. In conclusion, CogEvo may be an efficient tool for identifying individuals at a high risk for dementia. The possibility of missing CD cases should be considered when using CogEvo for screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cognitive assessment through communication has been the focus of recent studies because the conventional cognitive tests are often considered invasive for older people. Although the Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction is designed to assess cognitive function non‐invasively, inter‐rater reliability remains unclear. The current study investigated the Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction's reliability. Methods: The Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction was used by four clinical psychologists, who evaluated 38 older people with and without cognitive dysfunction. One clinical psychologist evaluated the assessment based on face‐to‐face communication with participants, while the other clinical psychologists evaluated it according to the audio data in the digital voice recorder. All clinical psychologists were blind to the results of other conventional cognitive tests and details surrounding participants' daily living activities. Results: The univariate correlation scores of the Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction among evaluators ranged from 0.61 to 0.79, all of which were significant (P < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.64 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.53–0.79 for agreement) and 0.67 (P < 0.001, 95% CI: 0.45–0.77 for consistency). The Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction score of all evaluators was significantly associated with conventional cognitive tests like the Mini‐Mental State Examination (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The findings suggested that the Conversational Assessment of Neurocognitive Dysfunction has moderate to good inter‐rater reliability and high concurrent validity as a cognitive assessment tool, and it would be useful in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]