Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.

Login with Facebook

Forgot Password? Reset your password

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login (Shibboleth)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Table of Contents
Vol. 27, No. 4, 2009
Issue release date: April 2009
Section title: Original Research Article
Free Access
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;27:344–352

Agreement in Cognitive and Clinical Assessments in Alzheimer’s Disease

Tractenberg R.E.a, b · Aisen P.S.b
aDepartments of Neurology, Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, and Psychiatry, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, D.C., and bDepartment of Neurology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, Calif., USA
email Corresponding Author

Rochelle E. Tractenberg

Georgetown University School of Medicine

Collaborative for Research on Outcomes and -Metrics

Building D, Suite 207, 4000 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC 20057 (USA)

Tel. +1 202 444 8748, Fax +1 202 444 4114, E-Mail ret7@georgetown.edu

Do you have an account?

Login Information

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.


Aims: To estimate agreement among scores on three common assessments of cognitive function. Method: Baseline responses on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive, Clinical Dementia Rating, and the Mini-Mental State Examination were obtained from two clinical trials (n = 138 and n = 351). A graphical method of examining agreement, the means-difference or Bland-Altman plot, was followed by Levene’s test of the equality of variance corrected for multiple comparison within each sample. Results: 70–78% of variability was shared by one factor, suggesting that all three instruments reflect cognitive impairment. However, agreement among tests was significantly worse for individuals with greater-than-average, relative to individuals with less-than-average, cognitive impairment. Conclusions: Worse agreement between tests, as a function of increasing cognitive impairment, implies that interpretation of these tests and selection of coprimary cognitive impairment outcomes may depend on impairment level.

© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Research Article

Accepted: October 20, 2008
Published online: March 17, 2009
Issue release date: April 2009

Number of Print Pages: 9
Number of Figures: 3
Number of Tables: 1

ISSN: 1420-8008 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-9824 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/DEM

Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.