Diagnostic Utility of Letter Fluency, Category Fluency, and Fluency Difference Scores in Alzheimer's Disease
Abstract
Word generation tasks, specifically letter fluency and category fluency, are a standard part of most test protocols used by clinical neuropsychologists to measure aspects of language and executive retrieval functions. Given the reliance on these measures as clinical tools, it is important to understand the diagnostic implications of patients' performances. In Alzheimer's disease (AD), category fluency has generally been found to be disproportionately impaired, whereas letter fluency is usually more mildly impaired. It has been proposed that this performance pattern occurs because access to temporal-lobe semantic stores is necessary for category fluency but not letter fluency. In this study, the diagnostic utility of category fluency, letter fluency, and difference scores (letter fluency minus category fluency) in AD were examined. Forty AD patients and 221 normal control subjects took category fluency and letter fluency tests. Traditional t-test comparisons revealed that the groups differed significantly on the two test tasks and in terms of mean difference scores. However, using sensitivity and specificity to calculate predictive values, only category fluency and letter fluency (but not difference scores) were useful in predicting AD in individuals. Furthermore, category fluency was superior to letter fluency in this regard. Likelihood ratio tables are provided for use in calculating the odds of AD for specific category fluency and letter fluency scores generated by individu…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Alzheimer's disease, semantic fluency is disproportionately impaired, with phonemic fluency ability less impaired.
“In Alzheimer’s disease, semantic fluency is disproportionately impaired, with phonemic fluency ability less impaired (Cerhan et al., 2002; Henry et al., 2004).”
From Internet-Based Conversational Engagement Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (I-CONECT) Among Socially Isolated Adults 75+ Years Old With Normal Cognition or Mild Cognitive Impairment: Topline Results (2024) · cites this paper as Cerhan et al., 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Language performance in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A comparative review
Taler, V., & Phillips, N. A. (2008) · Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/13803390701550128 · Cited by 529 · see citing works
Longitudinal Verbal Fluency in Normal Aging, Preclinical, and Prevalent Alzheimer’s Disease
Clark, L. J., Gatz, M., Zheng, L., Chen, Y.-L., McCleary, C., & Mack, W. J. (2009) · American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias® · doi:10.1177/1533317509345154 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Dodge, H. H., Zhu, J., Mattek, N. C., Bowman, M., Ybarra, O., Wild, K. V., Loewenstein, D. A., & Kaye, J. A. (2015) · Alzheimer's & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.trci.2015.01.001 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Dodge, H. H., Yu, K., Wu, C.-Y., Pruitt, P. J., Asgari, M., Kaye, J. A., Hampstead, B. M., Struble, L., Potempa, K., Lichtenberg, P., et al. (2024) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnad147 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cerhan, J. H., Ivnik, R. J., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. C., Petersen, R. C., & Boeve, B. F.
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-42
- ISSN
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review