Cargando…

Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many cognitive screening instruments (CSI) are available to clinicians to assess cognitive function. The optimal method comparing the diagnostic utility of such tests is uncertain. The effect size (Cohen's d), calculated as the difference of the means of two groups divided by t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Larner, Andrew J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: S. Karger AG 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4132220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25177332
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000363735
_version_ 1782330583899176960
author Larner, Andrew J.
author_facet Larner, Andrew J.
author_sort Larner, Andrew J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many cognitive screening instruments (CSI) are available to clinicians to assess cognitive function. The optimal method comparing the diagnostic utility of such tests is uncertain. The effect size (Cohen's d), calculated as the difference of the means of two groups divided by the weighted pooled standard deviations of these groups, may permit such comparisons. METHODS: Datasets from five pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies, which examined the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mini-Mental Parkinson (MMP), the Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Test Your Memory test (TYM), and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R), were analysed to calculate the effect size (Cohen's d) for the diagnosis of dementia versus no dementia and for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment versus no dementia (subjective memory impairment). RESULTS: The effect sizes for dementia versus no dementia diagnosis were large for all six CSI examined (range 1.59-1.87). For the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment versus no dementia, the effect sizes ranged from medium to large (range 0.48-1.45), with MoCA having the largest effect size. CONCLUSION: The calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d) in diagnostic accuracy studies is straightforward. The routine incorporation of effect size calculations into diagnostic accuracy studies merits consideration in order to facilitate the comparison of the relative value of CSI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4132220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher S. Karger AG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41322202014-08-29 Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Larner, Andrew J. Dement Geriatr Cogn Dis Extra Original Research Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many cognitive screening instruments (CSI) are available to clinicians to assess cognitive function. The optimal method comparing the diagnostic utility of such tests is uncertain. The effect size (Cohen's d), calculated as the difference of the means of two groups divided by the weighted pooled standard deviations of these groups, may permit such comparisons. METHODS: Datasets from five pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies, which examined the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Mini-Mental Parkinson (MMP), the Six-Item Cognitive Impairment Test (6CIT), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Test Your Memory test (TYM), and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R), were analysed to calculate the effect size (Cohen's d) for the diagnosis of dementia versus no dementia and for the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment versus no dementia (subjective memory impairment). RESULTS: The effect sizes for dementia versus no dementia diagnosis were large for all six CSI examined (range 1.59-1.87). For the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment versus no dementia, the effect sizes ranged from medium to large (range 0.48-1.45), with MoCA having the largest effect size. CONCLUSION: The calculation of the effect size (Cohen's d) in diagnostic accuracy studies is straightforward. The routine incorporation of effect size calculations into diagnostic accuracy studies merits consideration in order to facilitate the comparison of the relative value of CSI. S. Karger AG 2014-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4132220/ /pubmed/25177332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000363735 Text en Copyright © 2014 by S. Karger AG, Basel http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC) (www.karger.com/OA-license), applicable to the online version of the article only. Users may download, print and share this work on the Internet for noncommercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited, and a link to the original work on http://www.karger.com and the terms of this license are included in any shared versions.
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Larner, Andrew J.
Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title_full Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title_fullStr Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title_full_unstemmed Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title_short Effect Size (Cohen's d) of Cognitive Screening Instruments Examined in Pragmatic Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
title_sort effect size (cohen's d) of cognitive screening instruments examined in pragmatic diagnostic accuracy studies
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4132220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25177332
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000363735
work_keys_str_mv AT larnerandrewj effectsizecohensdofcognitivescreeninginstrumentsexaminedinpragmaticdiagnosticaccuracystudies