Search

Objective: With increasing international migration, societies have become increasingly diverse worldwide. Although neuropsychological assessment is influenced by several diversity characteristics, language barriers have repeatedly been identified as one of the main challenges to cross-cultural neuropsychological assessment in migrant populations. Importantly, neuropsychologists are often required to conduct interpreter-mediated neuropsychological assessments without any graduate training or continuing education on the topic. To address this gap, the objective of this paper is to provide guidelines for interpreter-mediated neuropsychological assessment. Method: A European Consortium on Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology (ECCroN) task force conducted a conceptual literature review and provided recommendations for good practice and working principles to inform the preparation and administration of interpreter-mediated assessments. Results: ECCroN takes the position that it is the responsibility of neuropsychologists, as well as the institutions or organizations that employ them, to ensure effective communication between themselves and their patients. This may be accomplished by preparing for an interpreter-mediated assessment by engaging an appropriate interpreter, which in most circumstances will be a professional in-person interpreter speaking the same language(s) or dialect(s) as the patient, and considering practical, language, and cross-cultural issues. During the assessment, reasonable steps should be taken to proactively manage the proceedings and adopt a communication style that facilitates effective patient-directed communication, and when interpreting test data and determining formulations and diagnoses, the limitations of interpreter-mediated assessment should be carefully considered. Conclusion: Adhering to the provided recommendations and working principles may help neuropsychologists provide competent interpreter-mediated neuropsychological assessments to linguistically diverse patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the discriminative validity of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case‐finding instrument in a general practice (GP) setting and compare it with other widely used brief cognitive instruments. Methods: Patients aged ≥70 years were prospectively recruited from 14 Danish GP clinics. Participants were classified as having either normal cognition (n = 154) or cognitive impairment (n = 101) based on neuropsychological test performance, reported instrumental activities of daily living, and concern regarding memory decline. Comparisons involved the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS), the Mini‐Cog, the 6‐item Clock Drawing Test (CDT‐6) and the BASIC Questionnaire (BASIC‐Q). Results: BASIC demonstrated good overall classification accuracy with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.92), a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI 0.62–0.80) and a specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.79–0.91). Pairwise comparisons of the AUCs of BASIC, MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS produced non‐significant results, but BASIC had significantly higher classification accuracy than Mini‐Cog, BASIC‐Q and CDT‐6. Depending on the pretest probability of cognitive impairment, the positive predictive validity of BASIC varied from 0.83 to 0.36, and the negative predictive validity from 0.97 to 0.76. Conclusions: BASIC demonstrated good discriminative validity in a GP setting. The classification accuracy of BASIC is equivalent to more complex, time‐consuming instruments, such as the MMSE, MoCA and RUDAS, and higher than very brief instruments, such as the CDT‐6, Mini‐Cog and BASIC‐Q. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The number of test translations and adaptations has risen exponentially over the last two decades, and these processes are now becoming a common practice. The International Test Commission (ITC) Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests (Second Edition, 2017) offer principles and practices to ensure the quality of translated and adapted tests. However, they are not specific to the cognitive processes examined with clinical neuropsychological measures. The aim of this publication is to provide a specialized set of recommendations for guiding neuropsychological test translation and adaptation procedures. Methods: The International Neuropsychological Society's Cultural Neuropsychology Special Interest Group established a working group tasked with extending the ITC guidelines to offer specialized recommendations for translating/adapting neuropsychological tests. The neuropsychological application of the ITC guidelines was formulated by authors representing over ten nations, drawing upon literature concerning neuropsychological test translation, adaptation, and development, as well as their own expertise and consulting colleagues experienced in this field. Results: A summary of neuropsychological-specific commentary regarding the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines is presented. Additionally, examples of applying these recommendations across a broad range of criteria are provided to aid test developers in attaining valid and reliable outcomes. Conclusions: Establishing specific neuropsychological test translation and adaptation guidelines is critical to ensure that such processes produce reliable and valid psychometric measures. Given the rapid global growth experienced in neuropsychology over the last two decades, the recommendations may assist researchers and practitioners in carrying out such endeavors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dan Wang,1 Shannon L Merkle,2 Jennifer E Lee,3,4 Kathleen A Sluka,1 Barbara Rakel,4 Thomas Graven-Nielsen,5 Laura A Frey-Law1 1Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; 2United States Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM), Natick, MA, USA; 3Department of Psychology, Mount Mercy University, Cedar Rapids, IA, USA; 4College of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA; 5Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP), SMI, Aalborg University, Aalborg, DenmarkCorrespondence: Laura A Frey-LawDepartment of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 1-252 Medical Education Bldg., 500 Newton Road, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USATel +1 319-335-9804Fax +1 319-335-9707Email laura-freylaw@uiowa.eduPurpose: Some individuals with chronic pain find daily life sensations (eg, noise, light, or touch) aversive. This amplification of multisensory sensations has been associated with centrally mediated plasticity; for example, greater multisensory sensitivity (MSS) occurs in patients with fibromyalgia than rheumatoid arthritis. However, whether MSS preferentially relates to pain measures which reflect central influences (eg, dynamic quantitative sensory testing (QST) or referred pain), or whether the MSS-pain relationship requires priming from chronic pain, is unknown. Thus, this cross-sectional study investigated the relationships between MSS assessed in a pain-free state and evoked pain sensitivity.Methods: Experimental intramuscular infusion pain and multiple static and dynamic QST were assessed in 465 healthy, pain-free adults: pain thresholds using pressure (PPTs) and heat (HPTs), temporal summation of pain (TSP) using pressure, heat or punctate stimuli, and conditioned pain modulation (CPM) using pressure or heat test stimuli. MSS was assessed using 7 items from Barsky’s Somatosensory Amplification Scale. Differences in pain and QST between sex-specific MSS quartiles were assessed, adjusting for multiple comparisons. All participants completed at least one intramuscular infusion condition, but not all were asked to complete each QST (n=166-465).Results: Both static and dynamic QST differed between highest and lowest MSS quartiles using pressure stimuli: lower PPTs (adjusted-p< 0.01); increased pressure TSP (adjusted-p=0.02); lower pressure CPM (adjusted-p=0.01). However, none of the heat or punctate QST measures (HPTs, TSP, or CPM) differed between MSS quartiles (adjusted-p> 0.05). Odds of experiencing TSP or referred pain was not greater, whereas CPM was 8-fold less likely, in those with highest MSS.Conclusion: Normal variation in non-noxious MSS is related to both static and dynamic pain sensitivity, without sensitization associated with chronic pain, but is dependent on the QST stimulus. Thus, common influences on MSS and pain sensitivity may involve central mechanisms but are likely more complex than previously recognized.Keywords: pain sensitivity, somatosensory amplification scale, experimental muscle pain, quantitative sensory testing, temporal summation of pain, conditioned pain modulation

Studies have reported gender differences in academic self-efficacy. However, how and if academic self-efficacy questionnaires are gender-biased has not been psychometrically investigated. The psychometric properties of a general version of The Physics Self-Efficacy Questionnaire -- the General Academic Self-Efficacy Scale (GASE) -- were analyzed using Rasch measurement models, with data from 1018 Danish university students (psychology and technical), focusing on gender invariance and the sufficiency of the score. The short 4-item GASE scale was found to be essentially objective and construct valid and satisfactorily reliable, though differential item functioning was found relative to gender and academic discipline, and can be used to assess students' general academic self-efficacy. Research on gender and self-efficacy needs to take gender into account and equate scores appropriately for unbiased analysis within academic disciplines.

© 2014 Tran et al.Clinical infections by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a deadly Gram-negative, opportunistic pathogen of immunocompromised hosts, often involve the formation of antibiotic-resistant biofilms. Although biofilm formation has been extensively studie

Background: The aims of this bibliometric analysis were (1) a longitudinal analysis of the publication landscape in the field of pain (1975–2020) and (2) to characterize the overall publication profiles for two selected journals: European Journal of Pain and PAIN® utilizing an automated approach. Methods: Database searches in Scopus extracted all journals with 'pain' in their title. For the two specific journals, papers were manually/automatically profiled into preclinical, human and translational studies. Results: A gross list of 64 journals in the field of pain consisting of both active and ceased journals in Scopus were included in this analysis which identified 62,565 papers with approximately 4000 papers published/year. These papers include 2759 and 9156 papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®, respectively. Currently, there are 24 active 'pain' journals. Authors/paper increase from 2 to 7 indicating a development from mono‐disciplinary to multi‐disciplinary studies. The overall publication profiles assessing preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN® were almost similar (14%, 75% and 10% versus 26%, 63% and 10%). Papers have changed over the years from mono‐disciplinary studies (e.g. behavioural studies) to multi‐disciplinary studies (e.g. combined behavioural and cell studies). After optimization, the search model matched the manual screening by 100%, 98% and 96% for the preclinical, clinical and healthy volunteer categories. Conclusions: Over the last 45 years, more than 60,000 pain‐related papers have been published. Papers develop over the years from mono‐disciplinary to multi‐disciplinary studies. The overall publication profile including preclinical, human (experimental/clinical) and translational papers was almost similar in Eur. J. Pain and PAIN®. Significance: The bibliometric analysis of a pain journal provides information on which specific areas of research are published, how this may have changed over the years and how a journal is positioned compared with other journals in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]