Cited by 12Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Comparison of conventional and actuarial neuropsychological criteria for mild cognitive impairment in a clinical setting

Open access
Fountain-Zaragoza, Stephanie, Braun, Sarah Ellen, Horner, Michael David, Benitez, Andreana·2021·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based practice in neuropsychology involves the use of validated tests, cutoff scores, and interpretive algorithms to identify clinically significant cognitive deficits. Recently, actuarial neuropsychological criteria (ANP) for identifying mild cognitive impairment were developed, demonstrating improved criterion validity and temporal stability compared to conventional criteria (CNP). However, benefits of the ANP criteria have not been investigated in non-research, clinical settings with varied etiologies, severities, and comorbidities. This study compared the utility of CNP and ANP criteria using data from a memory disorders clinic. METHOD: Data from 500 non-demented older adults evaluated in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center memory disorders clinic were retrospectively analyzed. We applied CNP and ANP criteria to the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, compared outcomes to consensus clinical diagnoses, and conducted cluster analyses of scores from each group. RESULTS: The majority (72%) of patients met both the CNP and ANP criteria and both approaches were susceptible to confounding factors such as invalid test data and mood disturbance. However, the CNP approach mislabeled impairment in more patients with non-cognitive disorders and intact cognition. Comparatively, the ANP approach misdiagnosed patients with depression at a third of the rate and those with no diagnosis at nearly half the rate of CNP. Cluster analyses revealed groups with: 1) minimal impairment, 2) amnestic impairment, and 3) multi-domain impairment. The ANP approach yielded subgroups with more distinct neuropsychological profiles. CONCLUSIONS: We replicated previous findings that the CNP approach is over-inclusive, particularly for those determined to have no cognitive disorder by a consensus team. The ANP approach yielded fewer false positives and better diagnostic specificity than the CNP. Despite clear benefits of the ANP vs. CNP, there was substantial overlap in their performance in this heterogeneous sample. These findings highlight the critical role of clinical interpretation when wielding these empirically-derived tools.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13803395.2021.2007857

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The study employed stringent actuarial neuropsychological criteria for aMCI that minimize false positive diagnoses to enhance diagnostic specificity and stability.

    “we employed stringent actuarial neuropsychological criteria for aMCI that minimize false positive diagnoses to enhance diagnostic specificity [56] and stability [57]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bowden SC (2017). Neuropsychological Assessment in the Age of Evidence-based Practice: Diagnostic and Treatment Evaluations. Oxford University Press.
  2. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health care system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fountain-Zaragoza, S., Braun, S. E., Horner, M. D., & Benitez, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
2021-08-09
Volume
43
Issue
7
Pages
753-765
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W4200478201
Cited by
12
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
no funding
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
mild cognitive impairment, diagnostic specificity, false positives, older adults, neuropsychological profile, clinical interpretation
MeSH terms
Aged, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Retrospective Studies, Cognitive Dysfunction

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