The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CLOX: an executive clock drawing task
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a clock drawing task (CLOX) designed to elicit executive impairment and discriminate it from non-executive constructional failure. SUBJECTS: 90 elderly subjects were studied (45 elderly and well persons from the independent living apartments of a continuing care retirement community and 45 patients with probable Alzheimer's disease). The clock drawing performance of elderly patients was compared with that of 62 young adult controls. METHODS: Subjects received the CLOX, an executive test (EXIT25), and the mini mental state examination (MMSE). The CLOX is divided into an unprompted task that is sensitive to executive control (CLOX1) and a copied version that is not (CLOX2). Between rater reliability (27 subjects) was high for both subtests. RESULTS: In elderly subjects, CLOX subscores correlated strongly with cognitive severity (CLOX1: r=-0.83 v the EXIT25; CLOX2: r=0.85 v the MMSE). EXIT25 and MMSE scores predicted CLOX1 scores independently of age or education (F(4,82)=50.7, p<0.001; R2=0.71). The EXIT25 accounted for 68% of CLOX1 variance. Only the MMSE significantly contributed to CLOX2 scores (F(4,72)= 57.2, p<0.001; R2=0.74). CLOX subscales discriminated between patients with Alzheimer's disease and elderly controls (83.1% of cases correctly classified; Wilkes' lambda=0.48, p<0.001), and between Alzheimer's disease subgroups with and without constructional impairment (91.9% of cases correctly classified; Wilkes' lambda=0.31, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The CLOX is an internally consistent measure that is easy to administer and displays good inter-rater reliability. It is strongly associated with cognitive test scores. The pattern of CLOX failures may discriminate clinical dementia subgroups.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Cited by
The FAB: A frontal assessment battery at bedside
Dubois, B., Slachevsky, A., Litvan, I., & Pillon, B. (2000) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.55.11.1621 · Cited by 3,913
Subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia
Román, G. C., Erkinjuntti, T., Wallin, A., Pantoni, L., & Chui, H. C. (2002) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(02)00190-4 · Cited by 1,067
Cognitive profile of patients with newly diagnosed Parkinson disease
Muslimović, D., Post, B., Speelman, J. D., & Schmand, B. (2005) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000180516.69442.95 · Cited by 1,007
Tariq, S. H., Tumosa, N., Chibnall, J. T., Perry, M. H., & Morley, J. E. (2006) · The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/01.jgp.0000221510.33817.86 · Cited by 724
Differentiation of vascular dementia from AD on neuropsychological tests
Looi, J. C. L., & Sachdev, P. S. (1999) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.53.4.670 · Cited by 382
Metadata
- Authors
- Royall, D. R., Cordes, J. A., & Polk, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-05-01
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 588-594
- ISSN
- 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156098875
- Cited by
- 841
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.