Abstract：
The aims of this study were to examine the psychometric properties of the Brief Assessment of Impaired Cognition (BASIC) case-finding instrument in clinical settings focusing on (i) test-retest reliability, (ii) the discriminative validity of BASIC and its components for identification of Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia and non-AD dementia, and (iii) the association of expert clinical rating of cognitive status with BASIC performance.
The test-retest reliability analysis was based on a sample of general practice patients (n = 59) retested with a mean interval of 19 days. Discriminative validity analyses and analysis of the association of cognitive status with BASIC performance were based on data from the primary validation study of BASIC in memory clinics.
The test-retest reliability of BASIC was high (r = 0.861). No significant difference in discriminative validity was found for identification of AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.99, specificity = 0.98) and non-AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.98). All components of BASIC contributed to the high discriminative validity of both AD and non-AD dementia. BASIC performance was significantly correlated with expert clinical rating of the cognitive status of patients. A crude staging model for cognitive status using BASIC score intervals had superior classification accuracy (70%) compared to a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score range-based model (58% accuracy).
BASIC is a reliable and valid case-finding instrument for AD dementia and non-AD dementia in clinical settings. BASIC performance is significantly associated with the degree of cognitive impairment, and BASIC seems to be superior to MMSE for staging of impairment.
The test-retest reliability analysis was based on a sample of general practice patients (n = 59) retested with a mean interval of 19 days. Discriminative validity analyses and analysis of the association of cognitive status with BASIC performance were based on data from the primary validation study of BASIC in memory clinics.
The test-retest reliability of BASIC was high (r = 0.861). No significant difference in discriminative validity was found for identification of AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.99, specificity = 0.98) and non-AD dementia (sensitivity = 0.90, specificity = 0.98). All components of BASIC contributed to the high discriminative validity of both AD and non-AD dementia. BASIC performance was significantly correlated with expert clinical rating of the cognitive status of patients. A crude staging model for cognitive status using BASIC score intervals had superior classification accuracy (70%) compared to a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score range-based model (58% accuracy).
BASIC is a reliable and valid case-finding instrument for AD dementia and non-AD dementia in clinical settings. BASIC performance is significantly associated with the degree of cognitive impairment, and BASIC seems to be superior to MMSE for staging of impairment.
摘要：
目的：这项研究的目的是检查临床环境中认知功能受损的简要评估（BASIC）病例发现工具的心理测量特性，重点是（i）重测可靠性，（ii）BASIC及其成分用于识别阿尔茨海默病（AD）痴呆和非AD痴呆的判别效度，和（iii）认知状态的专家临床评级与BASIC表现的关联。
方法：测试-重测信度分析是基于一般实践患者（n=59）的样本，平均间隔为19天。基于记忆诊所中BASIC的主要验证研究的数据，进行了判别效度分析和认知状态与BASIC表现的关联分析。
结果：BASIC的重测可靠性高（r=0.861）。识别AD痴呆（敏感性=0.99，特异性=0.98）和非AD痴呆（敏感性=0.90，特异性=0.98）的判别有效性没有显着差异。BASIC的所有组成部分都有助于AD和非AD痴呆的高区分效度。BASIC表现与患者认知状态的专家临床评分显着相关。与基于迷你精神状态检查（MMSE）分数范围的模型（58％的准确性）相比，使用BASIC分数间隔的认知状态粗略分期模型具有更高的分类准确性（70％）。
结论：BASIC是临床上用于AD痴呆和非AD痴呆的可靠且有效的病例发现工具。基本表现与认知障碍程度显著相关，BASIC在损害分期方面似乎优于MMSE。
方法：测试-重测信度分析是基于一般实践患者（n=59）的样本，平均间隔为19天。基于记忆诊所中BASIC的主要验证研究的数据，进行了判别效度分析和认知状态与BASIC表现的关联分析。
结果：BASIC的重测可靠性高（r=0.861）。识别AD痴呆（敏感性=0.99，特异性=0.98）和非AD痴呆（敏感性=0.90，特异性=0.98）的判别有效性没有显着差异。BASIC的所有组成部分都有助于AD和非AD痴呆的高区分效度。BASIC表现与患者认知状态的专家临床评分显着相关。与基于迷你精神状态检查（MMSE）分数范围的模型（58％的准确性）相比，使用BASIC分数间隔的认知状态粗略分期模型具有更高的分类准确性（70％）。
结论：BASIC是临床上用于AD痴呆和非AD痴呆的可靠且有效的病例发现工具。基本表现与认知障碍程度显著相关，BASIC在损害分期方面似乎优于MMSE。
