Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:37:53.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Behavioural Neurology Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

S. Darvesh ,
L. Leach ,
S. E. Black ,
E. Kaplan  and
M. Freedman
S. Darvesh
Affiliation:
Departments of Medicine (Neurology and Geriatric Medicine), and Anatomy & Neurobiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
L. Leach
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Baycrest Centre For Geriatric Care, Toronto, ON, Canada
S. E. Black
Affiliation:
Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre For Geriatric Care, and Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Science Centre, Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
E. Kaplan
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Baycrest Centre For Geriatric Care, Toronto, ON, Canada, and Department of Psychology, Suffolk University and Departments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA
M. Freedman
Affiliation:
Rotman Research Institute, and Behavioural Neurology Program, Baycrest Centre For Geriatric Care, and Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Background:

We present information regarding the standardization, reliability and clinical validity of two versions of the Behavioural Neurology Assessment (BNA). The BNA-Long Form consists of 24 subtests within separate domains: Attention, Memory, Language, Visuospatial Function, Executive Function, and Praxis. The BNA-Short Form consists of 13 subtests within the domains of Attention, Memory, Naming, Visuospatial Function and Executive Function. In addition to individual domain indices, a Grand Total score was calculated for both BNA versions.

Objective:

To standardize the administration and scoring and validate the BNA for detection of dementia.

Methods:

Standardized normative data were obtained on 115 healthy subjects ranging in age from 50 to 95. Test-retest stability was obtained on 19 subjects and clinical validity was investigated by administering the BNA and Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) to 29 patients with dementia and 29 age-matched healthy subjects (controls).

Results:

Age had a significant effect on all but the Visuospatial and Praxis indices of the BNA-Long Form and an effect on Naming and Grand Total score of the Short-Form. Internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient a) was .87 and .67 for the Long and Short Forms (.95 and .96 for dementia and control groups combined). Test-retest stability was acceptable. Grand Total indices of both BNA versions showed significant, positive correlations with the MMSE. Both BNA versions had superior sensitivity to dementia relative to the MMSE (.93 versus .79). Specificity was equivalent to the MMSE (.93 versus .97).

Conclusions:

Positive predictive values of the BNA and MMSE are equivalent but the BNA provides superior negative predictive value.

Résumé:

RÉSUMÉ:Introduction:

Nous discutons de la standardisation, de la fiabilité et de la validité Clinique de deux versions différentes de l’évaluation neurologique comportementale (ÉNC). La version longue de l’ÉNC est constituée de 24 sous-tests dans différentes sphères: l’attention, la mémoire, le langage, la fonction visuospatiale, la fonction exécutive et la praxie. La version courte est constituée de 13 sous-tests dans les sphères de l’attention, de la mémoire, de la dénomination, de la fonction visuospatiale et de la fonction exécutive. En plus des indices pour chaque sphère, un score global a été calculé pour les deux versions de l’ÉNC.

Objectif:

Standardiser l’administration et l’évaluation de l’ÉNC et valider ce test pour la détection de la démence.

Méthodes:

Des données normatives standardisées ont été obtenues chez 115 sujets sains don’t l’âge variait de 50 à 95 ans. La stabilité test-retest a été évaluée chez 19 sujets et la validité clinique chez 29 sujets déments et 29 témoins sains, appariés pour l’âge, à qui on a administré l’ÉNC et le MMSE.

Résultats:

En ce qui concerne la version longue de l’ÉNC, l’âge avait une influence significative sur tout sauf sur les indices visuospatiaux et la praxie et dans la version courte, il avait une influence significative sur le langage et sur le score global. La cohérence interne (coefficient de Cronbach a) était de 0,87 et 0,67 pour la version longue et la version courte respectivement (0,95 et 0,96 pour les groupes déments et témoins combinés). La stabilité test-retest était acceptable. Le score global pour les deux versions de l’ÉNC avait une correlation positive significative avec le MMSE. Les deux versions de l’ÉNC avaient une sensibilité supérieure pour la démence relativement au MMSE (0,93 versus 0,79). La spécificité était équivalente à celle du MMSE (0,93 versus 0,97).

Conclusions:

Les valeurs prédictives positives de l’ÉNC et du MMSE sont équivalentes. Cependant, l’ÉNC a une valeur prédictive négative supérieure.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , May 2005 , pp. 167 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2005

References

1. Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. Mini-Mental State: apractical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12:189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Shulman, KI, Feinstein, A. Quick Cognitive Screening for Clinicians: Mini Mental, Clock Drawing and other Brief Tests. London, England: Martin Dunitz Publishers, 2003.Google Scholar
3. Kiernan, RJ, Mueller, J, Langston, JW, Van Dyke, C. The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination: a brief but quantitative approach to cognitive assessment. Ann Int Med 1987; 107:481–485.Google Scholar
4. Schwamm, LH, Van Dyke, C, Kiernan, RJ, Merrin, EL, Mueller, J. The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination: comparison with the Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination and the MiniMental State Examination in a neurosurgical population. Ann Int Med 1987; 107:486–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Tombaugh, TN, McIntyre, NJ. The Mini-Mental State Examination:a comprehensive review. J Am Geriatr Soc 1992; 40:922–935.Google Scholar
6. Meiran, N, Stuss, DT, Guzman, DA, Lafleche, G, Willmer, J. Diagnosisof dementia: methods for the interpretation of scores of 5 neuropsychological tests. Arch Neurol 1996; 53:1043–1054.Google Scholar
7. Stuss, DT, Meiran, N, Guzman, DA, Lafleche, G, Willmer, J. Do longtests yield a more accurate diagnosis of dementia than short tests? A comparison of 5 neuropsychological tests. Arch Neurol 1996; 53:1033–1039.Google Scholar
8. Mathuranath, PS, Nestor, PJ, Berrios, GE, Rakowicz, W, Hodges, JR. A brief cognitive test battery to differentiate Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. Neurology 2000; 55:1613–1620.Google Scholar
9. Dubois, B, Slachevsky, A, Litvan, I, Pillon, B. The FAB: a frontalassessment battery at bedside. Neurology 2000; 55:1621–1626.Google Scholar
10. Teng, EL, Chui, HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS)examination. J Clin Psychiatry 1987; 48:314–318.Google Scholar
11. Tombaugh, TN, McDowell, I, Kristjansson, B, Hubley, AM. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Modified MMSE (3MS): A Psychometric Comparison and Normative Data. Psychol Assess 1996; 8: 48–59.Google Scholar
12. Lezak, MD. Neuropsychological assessment,. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
13. Strub, RL, Black, FW. The Mental Status Examination in Neurology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company, 1993.Google Scholar
14. Zakzanis, KK, Leach, L, Kaplan, E. Neuropsychological Differential Diagnosis. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1999.Google Scholar
15. DSM-IV. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 1994. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
16. Monsch, AU, Bondi, MW, Salmon, DP, et al. Clinical validity of the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale in detecting dementia of theAlzheimer type. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 899–904.Google Scholar
17. Hogan, DB, Ebly, EM. Predicting who will develop dementia in acohort of Canadian Seniors. Can J Neurol Sci 2000; 27:18–24.Google Scholar
18. Grutzendler, J, Morris, JC. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs 2001; 61:41–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Giacobini, E. From molecular structure to Alzheimer therapy. Jpn JPharmacol 1997; 74:225–241.Google Scholar
20. Krall, WJ, Sramek, JJ, Cutler, NR. Cholinesterase inhibitors: atherapeutic strategy for Alzheimer disease. Ann Pharmacother 1999; 33:441–450.Google Scholar