Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T18:52:34.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Meaningful Change in Cognition in Multiple Sclerosis: Method Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

L. A. S. Walker ,
P. D. Mendella ,
A. Stewart ,
M. S. Freedman  and
A. M. Smith
L. A. S. Walker*
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Service, The Ottawa Hospital Faculty of Medicine, Division of Neurology, University of Ottawa School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
P. D. Mendella
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Service, The Ottawa Hospital On Track Program, The Ottawa Hospital School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
A. Stewart
Affiliation:
Neuropsychology Service, Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre Memory Disorder Clinic, Bruyère Continuing Care, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
M. S. Freedman
Affiliation:
Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, The Ottawa Hospital Faculty of Medicine, Division of Neurology, University of Ottawa
A. M. Smith
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Ottawa
*
The Ottawa Hospital, Psychology, 737 Parkdale Avenue, Main Floor, Room 49, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 1J8, 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.
Objective:

To determine if different methods of evaluating cognitive change over time yield measurably different outcomes.

Methods:

Twelve cognitively impaired patients with clinically definite Multiple sclerosis (10 relapsing-remitting, 2 secondary progressive) underwent neuropsychological testing (baseline, 6, 12 months). Data was analysed using: t-tests evaluating group differences on individual tests, group differences in composite scores, reliable change analyses at the level of the individual, and comparisons regarding number of tests failed at each time point.

Results:

Group t-tests on individual tests yielded no change. When tests were grouped according to theoretical constructs, analyses revealed change in processing speed. Reliable change estimates revealed that 16% of the sample deteriorated. When change was measured with respect to the number of domains affected at each time point, 58% of the sample deteriorated on at least one subtest.

Conclusions:

Methodology has a significant impact on interpretation of longitudinal data. In the same group of subjects, traditional group analyses documented no change in individual test scores or change on a single composite score. Analyses of individual results documented change from 16 to 58% of the sample. Advantages and disadvantages of each method were discussed. Findings have implications for interpretation of longitudinal studies.

Type
Original Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 282 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2011

References

1Rao, SM, Leo, GJ, Bernardin, L, Unverzagt, F.Cognitive dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. I. Frequency, patterns, and prediction. Neurology. 1991; 41(5): 685–91.Google Scholar
2Achiron, A, Barak, Y.Cognitive impairment in probable multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003; 74: 443–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Olivares, T, Nieto, A, Sánchez, MP, Wollmann, T, Hernández, MA, Barroso, J.Pattern of neuropsychological impairment in the early phase of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2005; 11: 191–7.Google Scholar
4Arnett, PA, Higginson, CI, Voss, WD, Wright, B, Bender, WI, Wurst, JM.Depressed mood in multiple sclerosis: relationship to capacity-demanding memory and attentional functioning. Neuropsychology. 1999; 13: 434–46.Google Scholar
5Mitchell, AJ, Benito-León, J, Morales González, J-M, Rivera-Navarro, J.Quality of life and its assessment in multiple sclerosis: integrating physical and psychological components of wellbeing. Lancet Neurol. 2005; 4: 556–66.Google Scholar
6Jennekins-Schinkel, A, Laboyrie, PM, Lanser, JB, van der Velde, EA.Cognition in patients with multiple sclerosis after four years. J Neurol Sci. 1990; 99(2-3): 229–47.Google Scholar
7Kujala, P, Portin, R, Ruutiainen, J.The progress of cognitive decline in multiple sclerosis. A controlled 3-year follow-up. Brain. 1997; 120 (Pt 2): 289–97.Google Scholar
8Amato, MP, Zipoli, V, Portaccio, E.Multiple sclerosis-related cognitive changes: a review of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. J Neurol Sci. 2006; 245: 41–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Amato, MP, Portaccio, E, Goretti, B, et al.Association of neocortical volume changes with cognitive deterioration in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol. 2007: 64(8): 1157–61.Google Scholar
10Abramson, IS.Reliable change formula query: a statistician’s comments. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000; 6: 365.Google Scholar
11Chelune, GJ.Assessing reliable neuropsychological change. In: Franklin, RD, editor. Prediction in forensic and neuropsychology: sound statistical practices. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003. p. 123–47.Google Scholar
12Heaton, RK, Temkin, N, Dikmen, S, et al.Detecting change: a comparison of three neuropsychological methods using normal and clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2001; 16: 75–91.Google Scholar
13Hinton-Bayre, A.Reliable change formula query. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000; 6: 362–3.Google Scholar
14Sawrie, SM, Chelune, GJ, Naugle, RI, Lüders, HO.Empirical methods for assessing meaningful neuropsychological change following epilepsy surgery. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1996; 2: 556–64.Google Scholar
15Sawrie, SM.Analysis of cognitive change: a commentary on Keith et al. Neuropsychol. 2002; 16: 429–31.Google Scholar
16Temkin, NR, Heaton, RK, Grant, I, Dikmen, SS.Detecting significant change in neuropsychological test performance: a comparison of four models. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1999; 5: 357–69.Google Scholar
17Temkin, NR, Heaton, RK, Grant, I, Dikmen, SS.Reliable change formula query: Temkin et al. Reply. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000; 6: 364.Google Scholar
18Schilling, V, Jenkins, V, Morris, R, Deutsch, G, Bloomfield, D.The effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on cognition in women with breast cancer-preliminary results of an observational longitudinal study. The Breast. 2005; 14: 142–50.Google Scholar
19Collie, A, Maruff, P, McStephen, M, Darby, D.Are reliable change (RC) calculations appropriate for determining the extent of cognitive change in concussed athletes? Br J Sports Med. 2003; 37: 370–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Iverson, G.Interpreting change on the WAIS-III/WMS-III following traumatic brain injury. J Cog Rehab. 1999; July/August (17): 16–20.Google Scholar
21Chelune, GJ, Naugle, RI, Lüders, H, Sedlak, J, Awad, IA.Individual change after epilepsy surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychol. 1993; 7: 41–52.Google Scholar
22Frerichs, RJ, Tuokko, HA.A comparison of methods for measuring cognitive change in older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005; 20: 321–33.Google Scholar
23Jacobson, NS, Truax, P.Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991; 59: 12–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24Chelune, GJ, Sands, K, Barrett, J, Naugle, RI, Ledbetter, M, Tulsky, D.Test-retest characteristics and measures of meaningful change for the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1999; 5: 109.Google Scholar
25McSweeny, AJ, Naugle, RI, Chelune, GJ, Lüders, H.“T scores for change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology. Clin Neuropsychologist. 1993; 7: 300–12.Google Scholar
26Rapport, LJ, Axelrod, BN, Theisen, ME, Brines, DB, Kalechstein, AD.Relationship of IQ to verbal learning and memory: test and retest. J Clin Esp Neuropsychol. 1997; 19: 655–66.Google Scholar
27Smith, AM, Walker, LAS, Freedman, MS, DeMeuleemeester, C, Hogan, MJ, Cameron, I.fMRI investigation of disinhibition in cognitively impaired patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Sci. 2009; 281: 58–63.Google Scholar
28Ammons, RB, Ammons, CH.The Quick Test (QT): Provisional Manual. Psychol Rep; 1962.Google Scholar
29Wechsler, D.Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III: Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1997.Google Scholar
30Wechsler, D.Wechsler Memory Scale- III: Administration and Scoring Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1997.Google Scholar
31Gordon, M, McClure, FD, Post, EM.Gordon Diagnostic System. New York: Gordon Systems; 1986.Google Scholar
32Army Individual Test Battery. Manual of Directions and Scoring. Washington, DC: War Department, Adjutant General’s Office 1944.Google Scholar
33Brown, J.Some tests of the decay of immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol. 1958; 10: 12–21.Google Scholar
34Peterson, LR, Peterson, MJ.Short-term retention of individual verbal items. J Exp Psychol. 1959; 58: 193–8.Google Scholar
35Spreen, O, Benton, AL.Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia (NCCEA). Victoria, BC: University of Victoria Neuropsychology Laboratory; 1969, 1977.Google Scholar
36Berg, EA.A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. J Gen Psychol. 1948; 39: 15–22.Google Scholar
37Grant, DA, Berg, EA.A behavioural analysis of degree of impairment and ease of shifting to new responses in a Weigl-type card sorting problem. J Exp Psychol. 1948; 39: 404–11.Google Scholar
38Bohnen, N, Jolles, J, Twijnstra, A.Modification of the Stroop Color Word Test improves differentiation between patients with mild head injury and matched controls. Clin Neuropsychol. 1992; 6: 1978–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39Delis, DC, Kramer, JH, Kaplan, E, Ober, BA.California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition, Short Form. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2000.Google Scholar
40Camp, SJ, Stevenson, VL, Thompson, AJ, et al.A longitudinal study of cognition in primary progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2005; 128: 2891–8.Google Scholar
41Iverson, GL, Lovell, MR, Collins, MW.Interpreting change on ImPACT following sport concussion. Clin Neuropsychol. 2003; 17: 460–7.Google Scholar
42Woods, SP, Childers, M, Ellis, RJ, Guaman, S, Grant, I, Heaton, RK.A battery approach for measuring neuropsychological change. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006; 21: 83–9.Google Scholar
43Rao, SM.A manual for the Brief, Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests in Multiple Sclerosis. New York, NY: National Multiple Sclerosis Society; 1991.Google Scholar
44Benedict, RHB, Fischer, JS, Archibald, CJ, et al.Minimal neuropsychological assessment of MS patients. A consensus approach. Clin Neuropsychol. 2002; 16: 381–97.Google Scholar
45Benedict, RHB, Cookfair, D, Gavett, R, et al.Validation of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006; 12: 549–58.Google Scholar
46Ingraham, LJ, Aiken, CB.An empirical approach to determining criteria for abnormality in test batteries with multiple measures. Neuropsychol. 1996; 10: 120–4.Google Scholar