Performance validity in outpatients with multiple sclerosis and cognitive complaints.
Multiple sclerosis
cognitive impairment
neuropsychological assessment
performance validity
suboptimal performance
Journal
Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 1477-0970
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9509185
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
5
4
2022
entrez:
2
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Suboptimal performance during neuropsychological assessment renders cognitive test results invalid. However, suboptimal performance has rarely been investigated in multiple sclerosis (MS). To investigate potential underlying mechanisms of suboptimal performance in MS. Performance validity testing, neuropsychological assessments, neuroimaging, and questionnaires were analyzed in 99 MS outpatients with cognitive complaints. Based on performance validity testing patients were classified as valid or invalid performers, and based on neuropsychological test results as cognitively impaired or preserved. Group comparisons and correlational analyses were performed on demographics, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes. Twenty percent displayed invalid performance. Invalid and valid performers did not differ regarding demographic, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes. Disease severity of invalid and valid performers with cognitive impairment was comparable, but worse than cognitively preserved valid performers. Lower performance validity scores related to lower cognitive functioning, lower education, being male, and higher disability levels ( Suboptimal performance frequently occurs in patients with MS and cognitive complaints. In both clinical practice and in cognitive research, suboptimal performance should be considered in the interpretation of cognitive outcomes. Identification of factors that differentiate between suboptimal and optimal performers with cognitive impairment needs further exploration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Suboptimal performance during neuropsychological assessment renders cognitive test results invalid. However, suboptimal performance has rarely been investigated in multiple sclerosis (MS).
OBJECTIVES
To investigate potential underlying mechanisms of suboptimal performance in MS.
METHODS
Performance validity testing, neuropsychological assessments, neuroimaging, and questionnaires were analyzed in 99 MS outpatients with cognitive complaints. Based on performance validity testing patients were classified as valid or invalid performers, and based on neuropsychological test results as cognitively impaired or preserved. Group comparisons and correlational analyses were performed on demographics, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes.
RESULTS
Twenty percent displayed invalid performance. Invalid and valid performers did not differ regarding demographic, patient-reported, and disease-related outcomes. Disease severity of invalid and valid performers with cognitive impairment was comparable, but worse than cognitively preserved valid performers. Lower performance validity scores related to lower cognitive functioning, lower education, being male, and higher disability levels (
CONCLUSION
Suboptimal performance frequently occurs in patients with MS and cognitive complaints. In both clinical practice and in cognitive research, suboptimal performance should be considered in the interpretation of cognitive outcomes. Identification of factors that differentiate between suboptimal and optimal performers with cognitive impairment needs further exploration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34212754
doi: 10.1177/13524585211025780
pmc: PMC8961248
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
642-653Références
Qual Life Res. 1995 Jun;4(3):187-206
pubmed: 7613530
Clin Neuropsychol. 2019 Aug;33(6):1083-1101
pubmed: 30475095
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2006 Jul;12(4):549-58
pubmed: 16981607
Eur Neurol. 2006;56(2):78-105
pubmed: 16966832
Lancet Neurol. 2008 Dec;7(12):1139-51
pubmed: 19007738
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005 Jun;20(4):419-26
pubmed: 15896556
Mult Scler. 2018 Nov;24(13):1665-1680
pubmed: 30303036
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2014 Apr;20(4):357-69
pubmed: 24607070
Mult Scler. 2003 Feb;9(1):95-101
pubmed: 12617275
Brain Inj. 2014;28(13-14):1623-38
pubmed: 25215453
Neuroimage Clin. 2018 May 15;19:507-515
pubmed: 29984159
Mult Scler. 2006 Dec;12(6):787-93
pubmed: 17263008
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997 Feb;19(1):43-51
pubmed: 9071640
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020 Sep;91(9):945-952
pubmed: 32651247
Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26(8):1296-311
pubmed: 23061472
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2020 Mar-Apr;27(2):188-196
pubmed: 30380922
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 Mar;64(3):339-43
pubmed: 9527145
Neurology. 1983 Nov;33(11):1444-52
pubmed: 6685237
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 Jul 24;35(5):511-516
pubmed: 32186676
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 Aug 28;35(6):717-725
pubmed: 32318712
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
J Psychosom Res. 2000 Jun;48(6):555-60
pubmed: 11033374
Neuropsychiatry Neuropsychol Behav Neurol. 2000 Jul;13(3):199-203
pubmed: 10910092
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2013;35(1):59-70
pubmed: 23228141
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2020 Nov;26(10):1028-1035
pubmed: 32342832
Brain. 2018 Sep 1;141(9):2605-2618
pubmed: 30169585