AN EXAMINATION OF THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF REPETITIVE COGNITIVE TESTING CONDUCTED FREQUENTLY ON HEALTHY ADULTS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Abstract
Amidst the backdrop Cognitive decline, an essential indicator of various neuropsychiatric disorders, is progressively emerging as a significant area of focus for novel therapeutic strategies. Hence, it is critical to acquire reliable data via long-term follow-up studies so as to document the progressive nature of diseases and assess the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions. Before implementing repeated neuropsychological testing in longitudinal study designs, it is critical to comprehend the occurrence, time pattern, and magnitude of practice effects on cognition under healthy, high-performance conditions in order to optimise designs and interpret results in disease trials. Approaching techniques Healthy adults (N = 36; mean IQ 127.0 ± 14.1; 58% males) completed an asymmetrically distributed series of seven testing sessions (weeks 2-3, 6, 9, months 3, 6, 12) over the period of one year (baseline, weeks 2-3, 6, 9, months 3, 6). A variety of widely recognised assessments were employed to evaluate six critical cognitive domains as component of the neuropsychological battery. As a consequence, The analysis of the majority of tests conducted repeatedly unveiled the subsequent trend: (1) the presence of clinically significant practice effects during high-frequency testing until the third month (Cohen's d 0.36–1.19), which were most evident in the beginning; and (2) a subsequent plateau in performance during low-frequency testing. A restricted subset of examinations were resistant to practice or were constrained by ceiling effects. The effect of confounding variables (age, IQ, personality) was negligible. To conclude, The effects of practice are especially apparent during the initial phases of high-frequency recurrent cognitive evaluations involving healthy, high-achieving individuals. By gleaning from this research the most effective combination and schedule of evaluations, it is possible to more efficiently manage their effects. Moreover, normative data can now be collected for serial testing to assess typical learning curves, which are an essential comparative indicator of pathological cognitive processes.
Downloads
References
1. Green MF: What are the functional consequences of neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia?. Am J Psychiatry. 1996, 153: 321-330. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 2. Ritsner MS: Predicting quality of life impairment in chronic schizophrenia from cognitive variables. Qual Life Res. 2007, 16: 929-937. 10.1007/s11136-007-9195-3. Article PubMed Google Scholar 3. Farias ST, Harrell E, Neumann C, Houtz A: The relationship between neuropsychological performance and daily functioning in individuals with Alzheimer's disease: ecological validity of neuropsychological tests. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2003, 18: 655-672. Article PubMed Google Scholar 4. Nys GM, van Zandvoort MJ, van der Worp HB, de Haan EH, de Kort PL, Jansen BP, Kappelle LJ: Early cognitive impairment predicts long-term depressive symptoms and quality of life after stroke. J Neurol Sci. 2006, 247: 149-156. 10.1016/j.jns.2006.04.005. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 5. McCaffrey RJ, Duff K, Westervelt HJ: Practitioner's guide to evaluating change with neuropsychological assessment instruments. 2000, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers Google Scholar 6. McCaffrey RJ, Westervelt HJ: Issues associated with repeated neuropsychological assessments. Neuropsychol Rev. 1995, 5: 203-221. 10.1007/BF02214762. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 7. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW, Hannay HJ, Fischer JS: Neuropsychological Assessment. 2004, New York: Oxford University Press, 4 Google Scholar 8. Anastasi A: Psychological Testing. 1988, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company Google Scholar 9. Benedict RHB, Zgaljardic DJ: Practice effects during repeated administrations of memory tests with and without alternate forms. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998, 20: 339-352. 10.1076/jcen.20.3.339.822. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 10. Hausknecht JP, Halpert JA, Di Paolo NT, Gerrard MOM: Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability. J Appl Psychol. 2007, 92: 373-385. 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.373. Article PubMed Google Scholar 11. Donovan JJ, Radosevich DJ: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Distribution of Practice Effect: Now You See It, Now You Don't. J Appl Psychol. 1999, 84: 795-805. 10.1037/0021-9010.84.5.795. Article Google Scholar 12. Collie A, Maruff P, Darby DG, McStephen M: The effects of practice on the cognitive test performance of neurologically normal individuals assessed at brief test-retest intervals. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003, 9: 419-428. 10.1017/S1355617703930074. Article PubMed Google Scholar 13. Reeve CL, Lam H: The Relation Between Practice Effects, Test-Taker Characteristics and Degree of g-Saturation. International Journal of Testing. 2007, 7: 225-242. 10.1080/15305050701193595. Article Google Scholar 14. Watson FL, Pasteur M-AL, Healy DT, Hughes EA: Nine Parallel Versions of Four Memory Tests: An Assessment of Form Equivalence and the Effects of Practice on Performance. Hum Psychopharmacol. 1994, 9: 51-61. 10.1002/hup.470090107. Article Google Scholar 15. Salthouse TA, Tucker-Drob EM: Implications of short-term retest effects for the interpretation of longitudinal change. Neuropsychology. 2008, 22: 800-811. 10.1037/a0013091. Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar 16. Kulik JA, Kulik CLC, Bangert RL: Effects of Practice on Aptitude and Achievement-Test Scores. Am Educ Res J. 1984, 21: 435-447. Article Google Scholar 17. Beglinger LJ, Gaydos B, Tangphao-Daniels O, Duff K, Kareken DA, Crawford J, Fastenau PS, Siemers ER: Practice effects and the use of alternate forms in serial neuropsychological testing. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005, 20: 517-529. 10.1016/j.acn.2004.12.003. Article PubMed Google Scholar 18. Rapport LJ, Brines DB, Axelrod BN, Theisen ME: Full scale IQ as mediator of practice effects: The rich get richer. Clin Neuropsychol. 1997, 11: 375-380. 10.1080/13854049708400466. Article Google Scholar 19. Dikmen SS, Heaton RK, Grant I, Temkin NR: Test-retest reliability and practice effects of Expanded Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological test battery. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 1999, 5: 346-356. 10.1017/S1355617799544056. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 20. Bird CM, Papadopoulou K, Ricciardelli P, Rossor MN, Cipolotti L: Monitoring cognitive changes: Psychometric properties of six cognitive tests. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004, 43: 197-210. 10.1348/014466504323088051. Article PubMed Google Scholar 21. Mitrushina M, Satz P: Effect of Repeated Administration of a Neuropsychological Battery in the Elderly. J Clin Psychol. 1991, 47: 790-801. 10.1002/1097-4679(199111)47:6<790::AID-JCLP2270470610>3.0.CO;2-C. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 22. Horton AM: Neuropsychological practice effects x age: a brief note. Percept Mot Skills. 1992, 75: 257-258. 10.2466/PMS.75.4.257-258. Article PubMed Google Scholar 23. Schaie KW, Willis SL, Caskie GI: The Seattle longitudinal study: relationship between personality and cognition. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2004, 11: 304-324. Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar 24. Yaffe K, Blackwell T, Gore R, Sands L, Reus V, Browner WS: Depressive symptoms and cognitive decline in nondemented elderly women: a prospective study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999, 56: 425-430. 10.1001/archpsyc.56.5.425. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 25. McCaffrey RJ, Ortega A, Haase RF: Effects of repeated neuropsychological assessments. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 1993, 8: 519-524. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 26. Heaton RK, Temkin N, Dikmen S, Avitable N, Taylor MJ, Marcotte TD, Grant I: Detecting change: A comparison of three neuropsychological methods, using normal and clinical samples. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2001, 16: 75-91. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 27. Jacobson NS, Truax P: Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991, 59: 12-19. 10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 28. Temkin 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: 357-369. 10.1017/S1355617799544068. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 29. Parsons TD, Notebaert AJ, Shields EW, Guskiewicz KM: Application of reliable change indices to computerized neuropsychological measures of concussion. Int J Neurosci. 2009, 119: 492-507. 10.1080/00207450802330876. Article PubMed Google Scholar 30. Zehnder AE, Bläsi S, Berres M, Spiegel R, Monsch AU: Lack of practice effects on neuropsychological tests as early cognitive markers of Alzheimer disease?. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2007, 22: 416-426. 10.1177/1533317507302448. Article PubMed Google Scholar 31. Goldberg TE, Goldman RS, Burdick KE, Malhotra AK, Lencz T, Patel RC, Woerner MG, Schooler NR, Kane JM, Robinson DG: Cognitive improvement after treatment with second-generation antipsychotic medications in first-episode schizophrenia - Is it a practice effect?. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007, 64: 1115-1122. 10.1001/archpsyc.64.10.1115. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 32. Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. Br Med J. 1960, 23: 56-62. CAS Google Scholar 33. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA: The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987, 13: 261-276. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 34. Costa PT, McCrae RR: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Professional Manual. 1992, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc Google Scholar 35. Ehrenreich H, Fischer B, Norra C, Schellenberger F, Stender N, Stiefel M, Siren AL, Paulus W, Nave KA, Gold R, Bartels C: Exploring recombinant human erythropoietin in chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Brain. 2007, 130: 2577-2588. 10.1093/brain/awm203. Article PubMed Google Scholar 36. Reitan RM: Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills. 1958, 8: 271-276. 10.2466/PMS.8.7.271-276. Article Google Scholar 37. Randolph C: RBANS Manual - Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. 1998, San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation (Harcourt) Google Scholar 38. Zimmermann P, Fimm B: Test for Attentional Performance (TAP; German:Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung). 1995, Herzogenrath: Psytest Google Scholar 39. Kongs SK, Thompson LL, Iverson GL, Heaton RK: WCST-64: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 Card Version; Professional Manual. 2000, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc Google Scholar 40. Wechsler D: Wechsler Memory Scale - 3rd edition (WMS-III). 1998, Harcourt, TX: The Psychological Corporation Google Scholar 41. Aschenbrenner S, Tucha O, Lange KW: Regensburger Verbal Fluency Test (RWT; German: Regensburger Wortflüssigkeits-Test). 2000, Göttingen: Hogrefe Google Scholar 42. Cutter GR, Baier ML, Rudick RA, Cookfair DL, Fischer JS, Petkau J, Syndulko K, Weinshenker BG, Antel JP, Confavreux C: Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain. 1999, 122: 871-882. 10.1093/brain/122.5.871. Article PubMed Google Scholar 43. Tiffin J: Purdue Pegboard examiner manual. 1968, Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates Google Scholar 44. MacQuarrie TW: MacQuarrie Test for Mechanical Ability. 1925, Monterey, CA: California Test Bureau/McGraw-Hill, 1953 Google Scholar 45. Lehrl S: Multiple Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test (MWT-B; German: Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest). 1995, Erlangen: Straube Google Scholar 46. Tewes U: German Adaption of the Revised Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (HAWIE-R; German: Hamburg-Wechsler Intelligenztest für Erwachsene - Revision. 1991, Bern: Hans Huber Google Scholar 47. Cohen J: Statistical power for the behavioral sciences. 1988, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2 Google Scholar 48. Theisen ME, Rapport LJ, Axelrod BN, Brines DB: Effects of practice in repeated administrations of the Wechsler memory scale-revised in normal adults. Assessment. 1998, 5: 85-92. 10.1177/107319119800500110. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 49. Wilson BA, Watson PC, Baddeley AD, Emslie H, Evans JJ: Improvement or simply practice? The effects of twenty repeated assessments on people with and without brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000, 6: 469-479. 10.1017/S1355617700644053. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 50. Basso MR, Bornstein RA, Lang JM: Practice effects on commonly used measures of executive function across twelve months. Clin Neuropsychol. 1999, 13: 283-292. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 51. McCaffrey RJ, Ortega A, Orsillo SM, Nelles WB, Haase RF: Practice effects in repeated neuropsychological assessments. Clin Neuropsychol. 1992, 6: 32-42. 10.1080/13854049208404115. Article Google Scholar 52. Hinton-Bayre A, Geffen G: Comparability, reliability, and practice effects on alternate forms of the Digit Symbol Substitution and Symbol Digit Modalities tests. Psychol Assess. 2005, 17: 237-241. 10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.237. Article PubMed Google Scholar 53. Feinstein A, Brown R, Ron M: Effects of Practice of Serial Tests of Attention in Healthy-Subjects. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994, 16: 436-447. 10.1080/01688639408402654. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 54. Dikmen S, Machamer J, Temkin N, McLean A: Neuropsychological recovery in patients with moderate to severe head injury: 2 year follow-up. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1990, 12: 507-519. 10.1080/01688639008400997. Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar 55. Weingartner H, Eckardt M, Grafman J, Molchan S, Putnam K, Rawlings R, Sunderland T: The effects of repetition on memory performance in cognitively impaired patients. Neuropsychology. 1993, 7: 385-385. 10.1037/0894-4105.7.3.385.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.