Télécharger le texte intégral - ISPED-Enseignement à distance

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Annexes 194Psychometric Tests’ Sensitivity to Cognitive Changes 3TABLE 1. Demographic and health characteristics in thesample (n ¼ 2,252), the PAQUID Study, France, 1989–2001No. %Male 974 43.3No diploma 608 27.0Age (years) at visit at 1 year70 1,100 48.9>70–75 368 16.3>75–80 412 18.3>80 372 16.6Prevalent dementia at visit at 1 year 14 0.6Incident dementia between visitsat 3 and 13 years 368 16.3test. The estimated beta cumulative distribution functionsrepresent the shapes of the transformations between the latentcommon factor and each of the four tests and provideinteresting metrologic properties for each test. The completemethodology was previously detailed in the report by Proustet al. (4) and is described in the Appendix.SampleMeasurements at the initial visit were excluded fromthe analysis because of a first passing effect previously described(17). Indeed a test-retest improvement was observedbetween the initial visit and the visit at 1 year, possibly due tothe stress induced by the first evaluation at the initial visit ora practice effect observed after the first evaluation. Of the3,777 subjects in PAQUID, we retained 3,043 subjects whowere followed up after the initial visit, and we studied theevolution of the common factor between the visits at 1 and13 years. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) was notcompleted at the visit at 3 years. Moreover, a subsample ofPAQUID completed a nutritional questionnaire at the visitat 3 years that could impact on the Isaacs Set Test shortenedat 15 seconds (IST15) score for the fruit and animal categories.So, we excluded the measurements of IST15 at the visitat 3 years. From the sample of 3,043 subjects, we retaineda sample of 2,252 subjects with at least one measure at eachneuropsychological test between visits at 1 and 13 years toensure that every subject brought information about eachneuropsychological test. The median number of measureswas four for the MMSE (interquartile range (IQR): 2–5) andthe Benton Visual Retention Test (BVRT) (IQR: 2–5) andthree and two for the IST15 (IQR: 1–4) and the DSST (IQR:1–4), respectively.RESULTSDescription of the sampleCharacteristics of the subjects in the sample are describedin table 1: 56.7 percent of the subjects were women, and 73percent had at least graduated from primary school. Themean age at the beginning of the follow-up (visit at 1 year)was 75.16 (standard error: 6.24) years. Among the 2,252subjects, 14 had a positive diagnosis of dementia at the visitat 1 year, and 368 subjects were diagnosed as demented duringthe follow-up. At the 1-year visit, 1,623 subjects completedthe MMSE with a median score of 28 (IQR: 26–29),1,622 subjects completed the IST15 with a median score of28 (IQR: 24–33), 1,619 subjects completed the BVRT witha median score of 11 (IQR: 9–13), and 1,614 completed theDSST with a median score of 28 (IQR: 20–37) (table 2).Cognitive evolution with ageThe latent common cognitive factor ranges from 0 to 1,with 0 corresponding to a minimal cognitive performanceand 1 corresponding to a maximal cognitive performance.The predicted mean evolution of the latent common cognitivefactor and its 95 percent confidence interval are displayedin figure 1, part A. It shows a decline of cognitive performancesin the population according to age, with an accelerationof the decline at older ages. This evolution can be interpretedas the mean cognitive decline with age in a population ofsubjects aged 65 years or older, including both dementedand nondemented subjects.The predicted mean evolutions of the four tests and their95 percent confidence intervals are displayed in figure 1, partB. The decline of the DSST is quite linear, whereas the declineobserved in the other tests is nonlinear, with an accelerationat older ages.Comparison of the sensitivity of the four testsThe estimated transformation shapes between each testand the common factor are displayed in figure 2. They arevery different for the four tests: The transformation is concavefor the MMSE and the BVRT, convex for the DSST, and closeto linear for the IST15. Moreover, the MMSE and the BVRTcover, respectively, only 78 percent and 85 percent of thecommon factor range, while the DSST and the IST15 coveralmost all of the entire range with, respectively, 94 percentand 95 percent of the common factor range.Ceiling effect. For the MMSE and the BVRT, the maximumvalue of the test is reached for a value of the commonfactor lower than its maximum (respectively, 0.78 and 0.87),which shows that these tests are not appropriate to assesscognitive changes in subjects with a very high general cognitivelevel of functioning. This underlines the ceiling effectof these two tests. In contrast, the maximum values of theIST15 and the DSST are reached for a value of the commonfactor close to 1, underlining that these tests do not sufferfrom a ceiling effect and can identify changes at the highestlevels of cognition.The MMSE transformation. The nonlinear shape of theMMSE transformation shows that a decline of the MMSEdoes not correspond to the same intensity of decline of thecommon factor in all the range of the test. Indeed, a loss of0.1 in the common factor scale between 0.7 and 0.6 representsa loss of 1 point for the MMSE, whereas the same lossbetween 0.3 and 0.2 represents a loss of more than 4 pointsfor the MMSE. This shows that a decline in the MMSEcannot be interpreted without accounting for the initial valueand that the MMSE is more appropriate to detect a decline atlow cognitive levels than at high cognitive levels.
Annexes 1954 Proust-Lima et al.TABLE 2. Description of the cognitive performances for the four psychometric tests atthe visit at 1 year, with number of measures, range, median with interquartile range, andmean with standard error, the PAQUID Sudy, France, 1989–2001No. ofmeasuresRange(score)Median score(interquartile range)Mean score(standard error)Mini-Mental State Examination 1,623 12–30 28 (26–29) 27.09 (2.51)Isaacs Set Test shortened at15 seconds 1,622 9–40 28 (24–33) 28.46 (6.05)Benton Visual Retention Test 1,619 0–15 11 (9–11) 10.97 (2.53)Digit Symbol Substitution Test 1,614 0–76 28 (20–37) 28.60 (12.15)The BVRT transformation. The shape of the BVRT transformationis quite linear at the low cognitive levels (correspondingto a value under 10 at the BVRT or under 0.5 on thecommon factor scale). It reveals that, under a value of 0.5 forthe common factor, a decline in the BVRT represents thesame intensity of decline for the common factor whateverFIGURE 1. Predicted mean evolution (solid line) with 95% confidence interval (dashed lines) for the common factor (A) and for the four tests (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Benton Visual Retention Test (BVRT), Digital Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), and Isaacs Set Test shortenedat 15 seconds (IST15)) (B), the PAQUID Study, France, 1989–2001.
Page 1 and 2:
Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux
Page 3 and 4:
3RemerciementsA Monsieur Jean-Louis
Page 5 and 6:
5Un immense merci à tous ceux que
Page 7 and 8:
7A Delphine et ses mille et une his
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE DES MATIÈRES 92.3.2 Estimati
Page 11 and 12:
TABLE DES MATIÈRES 116.3.1 Adéqua
Page 13 and 14:
Introduction 13ans atteintes d’un
Page 15 and 16:
Introduction 15Mais, pour l’insta
Page 17 and 18:
Introduction 171.2 Problèmes méth
Page 19 and 20:
Introduction 191.2.3 Association en
Page 21 and 22:
Introduction 21QUID suggère que le
Page 23 and 24:
Chapitre 2Etat des connaissancesCe
Page 25 and 26:
Etat des connaissances 25Plusieurs
Page 27 and 28:
Etat des connaissances 27Prise en c
Page 29 and 30:
Etat des connaissances 29Extensions
Page 31 and 32:
Etat des connaissances 31données s
Page 33 and 34:
Etat des connaissances 33variables
Page 35 and 36:
Etat des connaissances 35(2000) ne
Page 37 and 38:
Etat des connaissances 372.3 Modél
Page 39 and 40:
Etat des connaissances 39chapitre 3
Page 41 and 42:
Etat des connaissances 41de mélang
Page 43 and 44:
Etat des connaissances 43Hawkins et
Page 45 and 46:
Etat des connaissances 45tique de d
Page 47 and 48:
Etat des connaissances 47L’estima
Page 49 and 50:
Etat des connaissances 49normales s
Page 51 and 52:
Etat des connaissances 512.4 Modél
Page 53 and 54:
Etat des connaissances 53en tant qu
Page 55 and 56:
Etat des connaissances 55interactio
Page 57 and 58:
Etat des connaissances 57décrite p
Page 59 and 60:
Etat des connaissances 59entre l’
Page 61 and 62:
Etat des connaissances 612.4.3 Cas
Page 63 and 64:
Etat des connaissances 63l’inform
Page 65 and 66:
Modèle nonlinéaire à processus l
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Chapitre 4Modèle nonlinéaire à c
Page 95 and 96:
Modèle nonlinéaire à classes lat
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144: Modèle nonlinéaire à classes lat
Page 149 and 150: Chapitre 6Discussion et perspective
Page 151 and 152: Discussion et perspectives 151la pr
Page 153 and 154: Discussion et perspectives 153Varia
Page 155 and 156: Discussion et perspectives 1556.2 M
Page 157 and 158: Discussion et perspectives 157à cl
Page 160 and 161: Discussion et perspectives 160effet
Page 162 and 163: Discussion et perspectives 162Dans
Page 164 and 165: Chapitre 7BibliographieAmieva, H.,
Page 166 and 167: Bibliographie 1661, S19-25.Brown, E
Page 168 and 169: Bibliographie 168Sons, New-York.Fol
Page 170 and 171: Bibliographie 170Hogan, J. W. et La
Page 172 and 173: Bibliographie 172Lin, H., McCulloch
Page 174 and 175: Bibliographie 174Park, CA.Muthén,
Page 176 and 177: Bibliographie 176Schlattmann, P. (2
Page 178 and 179: Bibliographie 178in the random-effe
Page 180 and 181: Chapitre 8Annexes8.1 Liste des publ
Page 182 and 183: Annexes 182Pau (France)Communicatio
Page 184 and 185: Annexes 184166 C. Proust, H. Jacqmi
Page 192 and 193: AnnexesAmerican Journal of Epidemio
Page 196 and 197: Annexes 196Psychometric Tests’ Se
Page 198 and 199: Annexes 198Psychometric Tests’ Se
Page 200 and 201: Annexes 200Abstract :When investiga
Page 202 and 203: Annexes 202educated subjects. This
Page 204 and 205: Annexes 204(iii) the recognition fo
Page 206 and 207: Annexes 206Explanatory variablesIn
Page 208 and 209: Annexes 208IST15 (median=28, IQR=24
Page 210 and 211: Annexes 210and on the mean evolutio
Page 212 and 213: Annexes 212These findings should be
Page 214 and 215: Annexes 214Appendix : model specifi
Page 216 and 217: Annexes 216References[1] Amieva H,
Page 218 and 219: Annexes 218[19] Letenneur L, Commen
Page 220 and 221: Annexes 220Figure 1 : (A) Predicted
Page 222 and 223: Annexes 222Table 1: demographic and
Page 224: Annexes 224MMSE 0.0037 * 0.0013,0.0
show all

Télécharger le texte intégral - ISPED-Enseignement à distance

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?