Executive function in XXY: Comparison of performance-based measures and rating scales.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Janusz J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8363474 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Limitation of functional ability is a major feature of Huntington's disease (HD). The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned the appraisal of the use and clinimetric properties of clinical measures of functional ability that have been applied in HD studies and trials to date, to make recommendations regarding their use based on standardized criteria. After a systematic literature search, we included a total of 29 clinical measures grouped into two categories: (1) performance-based measures (e.g., balance, walking, and reaching/grasping), and (2) rating scales. Three performance-based measures are rated as "recommended": the Tinetti Mobility Test for screening of fall risk and for severity assessment of mobility in patients with manifest HD (up to stage III); the Berg Balance Scale for severity of balance impairment; and the Six-Minute Walk Test for assessment of walking endurance (severity) in HD subjects with preserved ambulation. No rating scale targeting functional ability reached a "recommended" status either for screening or severity measurement. The main challenges identified in this review include applying widely accepted conceptual frameworks to the identified measures, the lack of validation of clinical measures to detect change over time, and absence of validated measures for upper limb function. Furthermore, measures of capacity or ability to perform activities of daily living had ceiling effects in people with early and pre-manifest HD. We recommend that the MDS prioritize the development of new scales that capture small, but meaningful changes in function over time for outcome assessment in clinical trials, particularly in earlier stages of HD.
| S-EPMC6174516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveExecutive functions are commonly measured using rating scales and performance tests. However, replicated evidence indicates weak/nonsignificant cross-method associations that suggest divergent rather than convergent validity. The current study is the first to investigate the relative concurrent and predictive validities of executive function tests and ratings using (a) multiple gold-standard performance tests, (b) multiple standardized rating scales completed by multiple informants, and (c) both performance-based and ratings-based assessment of academic achievement-a key functional outcome with strong theoretical links to executive function.MethodA well-characterized sample of 136 children oversampled for ADHD and other forms of child psychopathology associated with executive dysfunction (ages 8-13; 68% Caucasian/non-Hispanic) completed a counterbalanced series of executive function and academic tests. Parents/teachers completed executive function ratings; teachers also rated children's academic performance.ResultsThe executive function tests/ratings association was modest (r = .30) and significantly lower than the academic tests/ratings association (r = .63). Relative to ratings, executive function tests showed significantly higher cross-method predictive validity and significantly better within-method prediction; executive function ratings failed to demonstrate improved within-method prediction. Both methods uniquely predicted academic tests and ratings.ConclusionThese findings replicate prior evidence that executive function tests and ratings cannot be used interchangeably as executive function measures in research and clinical applications, while suggesting that executive function tests may have superior validity for predicting academic behavior/achievement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC7483691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Because there is overlap between somatic symptoms of depression and symptoms of chronic kidney disease (CKD), it is unclear if self-reported depression rating scales can be used accurately in predialysis CKD patients, especially if CKD and other comorbidities are symptomatic. We assessed the performance of two depression scales - the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) - by CKD stage, diagnosis of diabetes and total medical comorbidity burden - using item response theory (IRT) in a sample of 272 predialysis CKD patients.We performed IRT by low versus high CKD stage, diabetes versus no diabetes and high (>3 diagnoses) versus low medical comorbidity burden.IRT models of each rating scale were affected in a limited way by CKD stage, diabetes and medical comorbidity burden. Sleep disturbances on the QIDS-SR16 were more discriminatory for depression in diabetics and those with high comorbidity burden. Pessimism and guilt from the BDI compared to QIDS-SR16 were more discriminatory of depression in the high CKD and high comorbidity groups, respectively.Overall item differences were modest, and chronic disease severity by CKD stage, diabetes mellitus or other medical comorbidities did not appreciably contribute to differences in scale performance.
| S-EPMC5724363 | biostudies-other
Project description:Inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity are the primary behaviors associated with Attention Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Previous studies proved that peripheral blood gene expression signature could mirror central nervous system disease. This study determined if gene expression in blood correlated with inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity rating scales and/or both in subjects with Tourette syndrome (TS).
2014-06-30 | GSE30470 | GEO
Project description:Many rating scales have been applied to the evaluation of dystonia, but only few have been assessed for clinimetric properties. The Movement Disorders Society commissioned this task force to critique existing dystonia rating scales and place them in the clinical and clinimetric context. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify rating scales that have either been validated or used in dystonia. Thirty-six potential scales were identified. Eight were excluded because they did not meet review criteria, leaving 28 scales that were critiqued and rated by the task force. Seven scales were found to meet criteria to be "recommended": the Blepharospasm Disability Index is recommended for rating blepharospasm; the Cervical Dystonia Impact Scale and the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale for rating cervical dystonia; the Craniocervical Dystonia Questionnaire for blepharospasm and cervical dystonia; the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and the Vocal Performance Questionnaire (VPQ) for laryngeal dystonia; and the Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale for rating generalized dystonia. Two "recommended" scales (VHI and VPQ) are generic scales validated on few patients with laryngeal dystonia, whereas the others are disease-specific scales. Twelve scales met criteria for "suggested" and 7 scales met criteria for "listed." All the scales are individually reviewed in the online information. The task force recommends 5 specific dystonia scales and suggests to further validate 2 recommended generic voice-disorder scales in dystonia. Existing scales for oromandibular, arm, and task-specific dystonia should be refined and fully assessed. Scales should be developed for body regions for which no scales are available, such as lower limbs and trunk.
| S-EPMC4207366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Executive function (EF) is a domain general cognitive construct associated with a number of important developmental outcomes. The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool version (BRIEF-P) is intended to assess 5 distinct components of EF in preschool age children. In this study, a series of factor analyses was conducted with teacher-reported EF of 2,367 preschool students to assess the structure of the BRIEF-P, and the predictive relations between the resulting factors and children's academic abilities and behavioral self-regulation were assessed to test the construct and convergent validity of the BRIEF-P scores. Results yielded mixed findings concerning the structure of the BRIEF-P and validity of its resultant scores. Results of the factor analyses indicated that the items of the BRIEF-P did not map onto factors in the way that would be expected based on its item-to-subscale mapping. The best solutions were a 4-factor and a bifactor model. The 4-factor solution revealed substantial correlations between factors, and although the bifactor solution identified a General Self-Regulation factor that explained variance in responses across items, this general factor did not account for all of the overlap among specific factors. Analyses of the relations for the factors from the correlated-factors and the bifactor models indicated that the majority of the factors had limited convergent validity with academic ability or with a measure of behavior self-regulation. Overall, these findings call into question the validity of aspects of BRIEF-P. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5097689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Executive function (EF) impacts behavior associated with health outcomes. EF can be measured using self-report and/or performance measures, but the correlations between these types of measures are mixed in the extant literature. This study examined self-report and performance-based measures of EF using data from 6 studies, including community and clinical populations (410 participants, ages 19-80, 71% female). Partial correlations revealed significant relationships between performance on the Trail making, Delay Discounting, and Stop Signal tasks with self-reported EF (p < .006 after controlling for age). Mood scores were significantly related to all self-reported domains of EF (p < .0001), and mood and EF scores were correlated over time. When also controlling for mood, correlations between delay discounting and stop signal tasks with self-reported EF remained significant (p < .006). Finally, examining EF scores in participants with and without clinically elevated mood scores showed a wider distribution of self-reported EF scores among those with clinically elevated mood symptoms than among those without. We conclude that self-reported EF is associated with tasks measuring delay discounting and response inhibition in our large, heterogenous population and that assessing EF may be particularly important for those with high levels of mood symptoms.
| S-EPMC7935411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Semantic verbal fluency (sVF) tasks are commonly used in clinical diagnostic batteries as well as in a research context. When performing sVF tasks to assess executive functions (EFs) the sum of correctly produced words is the main measure. Although previous research indicates potentially better insights into EF performance by the use of finer grained sVF information, this has not yet been objectively evaluated. To investigate the potential of employing a finer grained sVF feature set to predict EF performance, healthy monolingual German speaking participants (n = 230) were tested with a comprehensive EF test battery and sVF tasks, from which features including sum scores, error types, speech breaks and semantic relatedness were extracted. A machine learning method was applied to predict EF scores from sVF features in previously unseen subjects. To investigate the predictive power of the advanced sVF feature set, we compared it to the commonly used sum score analysis. Results revealed that 8 / 14 EF tests were predicted significantly using the comprehensive sVF feature set, which outperformed sum scores particularly in predicting cognitive flexibility and inhibitory processes. These findings highlight the predictive potential of a comprehensive evaluation of sVF tasks which might be used as diagnostic screening of EFs.
| S-EPMC7994566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression symptom questionnaires are commonly used to assess symptom severity and as screening tools to identify patients who may have depression. They are not designed to ascertain diagnostic status and, based on published sensitivity and specificity estimates, would theoretically be expected to overestimate prevalence. Meta-analyses sometimes estimate depression prevalence based on primary studies that used screening tools or rating scales rather than validated diagnostic interviews. Our objectives were to determine classification methods used in primary studies included in depression prevalence meta-analyses, if pooled prevalence differs by primary study classification methods as would be predicted, whether meta-analysis abstracts accurately describe primary study classification methods, and how meta-analyses describe prevalence estimates in abstracts. METHODS:We searched PubMed (January 2008-December 2017) for meta-analyses that reported pooled depression prevalence in the abstract. For each meta-analysis, we included up to one pooled prevalence for each of three depression classification method categories: (1) diagnostic interviews only, (2) screening or rating tools, and (3) a combination of methods. RESULTS:In 69 included meta-analyses (81 prevalence estimates), eight prevalence estimates (10%) were based on diagnostic interviews, 36 (44%) on screening or rating tools, and 37 (46%) on combinations. Prevalence was 31% based on screening or rating tools, 22% for combinations, and 17% for diagnostic interviews. Among 2094 primary studies in 81 pooled prevalence estimates, 277 (13%) used validated diagnostic interviews, 1604 (77%) used screening or rating tools, and 213 (10%) used other methods (e.g., unstructured interviews, medical records). Classification methods pooled were accurately described in meta-analysis abstracts for 17 of 81 (21%) prevalence estimates. In 73 meta-analyses based on screening or rating tools or on combined methods, 52 (71%) described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders." Results were similar for meta-analyses in journals with impact factor ≥ 10. CONCLUSIONS:Most meta-analyses combined estimates from studies that used screening tools or rating scales instead of diagnostic interviews, did not disclose this in abstracts, and described the prevalence as being for "depression" or "depressive disorders " even though disorders were not assessed. Users of meta-analyses of depression prevalence should be cautious when interpreting results because reported prevalence may exceed actual prevalence.
| S-EPMC6427845 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundConsensus-orientated Delphi studies are increasingly used in various areas of medical research using a variety of different rating scales and criteria for reaching consensus. We explored the influence of using three different rating scales and different consensus criteria on the results for reaching consensus and assessed the test-retest reliability of these scales within a study aimed at identification of global treatment goals for total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsWe conducted a two-stage study consisting of two surveys and consecutively included patients scheduled for TKA from five German hospitals. Patients were asked to rate 19 potential treatment goals on different rating scales (three-point, five-point, nine-point). Surveys were conducted within a 2 week period prior to TKA, order of questions (scales and treatment goals) was randomized.ResultsEighty patients (mean age 68?±?10?years; 70% females) completed both surveys. Different rating scales (three-point, five-point and nine-point rating scale) lead to different consensus despite moderate to high correlation between rating scales (r?=?0.65 to 0.74). Final consensus was highly influenced by the choice of rating scale with 14 (three-point), 6 (five-point), 15 (nine-point) out of 19 treatment goals reaching the pre-defined 75% consensus threshold. The number of goals reaching consensus also highly varied between rating scales for other consensus thresholds. Overall, concordance differed between the three-point (percent agreement [p]?=?88.5%, weighted kappa [k]?=?0.63), five-point (p?=?75.3%, k?=?0.47) and nine-point scale (p?=?67.8%, k?=?0.78).ConclusionThis study provides evidence that consensus depends on the rating scale and consensus threshold within one population. The test-retest reliability of the three rating scales investigated differs substantially between individual treatment goals. This variation in reliability can become a potential source of bias in consensus studies. In our setting aimed at capturing patients' treatment goals for TKA, the three-point scale proves to be the most reasonable choice, as its translation into the clinical context is the most straightforward among the scales. Researchers conducting Delphi studies should be aware that final consensus is substantially influenced by the choice of rating scale and consensus criteria.
| S-EPMC7011537 | biostudies-literature