Development and comparison of alternate forms of the Loewenstein-Acevedo Scales for Semantic Interference and Learning-Digital Version (LASSI-D) in older participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition

Le résumé fourni par la source

BackgroundEarly detection of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) is crucial for early intervention. The Loewenstein-Acevedo Scales for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI-L) identify risk for cognitive decline by measuring proactive semantic interference (PSI). PSI correlates with critical Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers, predicting decline. A digital version of the LASSI™, the LASSI-D™, was highly convergent with the LASSI-L in older participants.ObjectiveWe developed three alternative forms of the LASSI-D™, examining convergence across forms and retest changes, to evaluate utility as a repeated-measure.MethodsAlternative forms were developed in English and Spanish. 77 participants meeting criteria for aMCI and 92 participants with normal cognition were tested twice at a 2-week interval. Participants who were assessed first with the LASSI-D were retested with the LASSI-L and vice versa. Critical variables for the LASSI™ are indices of PSI, including reduced learning of the second word list and recall intrusions when attempting to recall the second list.ResultsThere were no form or group differences on any PSI-related variable across alternative forms, all ps > 0.6, with the digital forms and LASSI-L equivalently sensitive to aMCI, (all ps < 0.01). Intrusion errors were essentially identical for LASSI forms across, (all p > 0.86), without significant practice effects. Performance did not differ across language for any variable across groups, forms, and assessments, all ps > 0.010.ConclusionsThree digital alternative forms of the LASSI™ were highly convergent with each other and the LASSI-L. The findings provide evidence of the utility of a cloud-based, self-administered cognitive challenge test with alternative forms.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.