4.2 Article

Diagnostic Performance of the Chinese Frontal Assessment Battery in Early Cognitive Impairment in an Asian Population

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 30, Issue 6, Pages 525-532

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000321665

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Early diagnosis; Neuropsychology; Dementia; Mild cognitive impairment

Funding

  1. Biomedical Research Council, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (ASTAR) [03/1/21/17/214]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) has been shown to be useful in evaluating frontal dysfunction. There is a paucity of studies validating cutoffs in the early cognitive impairment. We aim to validate the Chinese FAB in Asian subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. Methods: Eighty subjects with MCI and mild dementia and 100 cognitively healthy community subjects were studied. ROC analysis was done to determine the Chinese FAB's optimal cutoff scores for age-and education-adjusted subgroups. Results: Chinese FAB scores were significantly lower in early cognitive impairment compared with cognitively normal controls. The optimal cutoff score was 12/13 (sensitivity 92%, specificity 78.7%). A similar cutoff score was obtained following age-adjustment and for subjects with <6 years' education. Of note, the optimal cutoff for subjects with 6 6 years' education was 13/14 (sensitivity 91.8%, specificity 70.3%), an improved diagnostic performance compared to the earlier reported 11/12 cutoff. In comparison, the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) had lower rule-out accuracy (77% sensitivity, 91.2% specificity). The combination of the Chinese FAB and MMSE was superior to either test in isolation. Conclusion: The education-adjusted Chinese FAB has good diagnostic performance, which can supplement the MMSE in early cognitive impairment evaluation with construct differences observed between the Chinese FAB and MMSE. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available