Establishing construct validity of neuropsychological tests in cancer survivors.
Psycho-Oncology
cancer
cancer related cognitive impairments (CRCI)
construct validity
neuropsychological tests
oncology
survivorship
Journal
Psycho-oncology
ISSN: 1099-1611
Titre abrégé: Psychooncology
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9214524
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
31
07
2022
received:
10
01
2022
accepted:
07
08
2022
pubmed:
13
8
2022
medline:
12
10
2022
entrez:
12
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cancer-related cognitive impairments (CRCI) are frequently reported among cancer survivors, and attention is the most frequently assessed cognitive domain in CRCI. However, there is no consensus as to whether attention is impaired. We suggest that a major reason for this lack of agreement is a lack of construct validity for neuropsychological attention tests. We propose to assess the construct validity of neuropsychological attention tests with respect to experimental paradigms from cognitive psychology. Self-reported cancer survivors (N = 314) completed an online battery comprising six experimental attention paradigms and eight neuropsychological tests. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the fit of five models derived from a general population sample (N = 636) in a previous study (M. Treviño, Cogn Res Princ Implic, in press). We then subjected the best-fitting model to a measurement invariance analysis. The best-fitting model was a six intercorrelated factor structure, comprising Capacity, Search, Digit Span, Arithmetic, Sustained Attention, and Flanker Interference factors. Configural and weak invariance held, indicating that the factor loadings were invariant across groups. Strong invariance, indicating that intercepts were also invariant, held except for the Approximate Number Sense test. According to our factor model, Spatial Span and Digit Symbol Coding measure attentional capacity, while the Trail Making Test (A&B) and Letter Cancellation tests measure visual search ability. However, Digit Span and Arithmetic tests do not measure attention. We hope that these results will lead to better scientific models, better patient education, and, ultimately, improved outcomes for survivors.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1728-1736Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : HHSN261201800002B
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.
Références
Von Ah D, Habermann B, Carpenter JS, Schneider BL. Impact of perceived cognitive impairment in breast cancer survivors. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2013;17(2):236-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2012.06.002
Horowitz TS, Treviño M, Gooch IM, Duffy KA. Understanding the Profile of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairments: a Critique of Meta-Analyses. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz100
Shilling V, Jenkins V, Trapala IS. The (mis)classification of chemo-fog - methodological inconsistencies in the investigation of cognitive impairment after chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;95(2):125-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-9055-1
Horowitz TS, Suls J, Treviño M. A call for a neuroscience approach to cancer-related cognitive impairment. Trends Neurosci. 2018;41(8):493-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2018.05.001
Howieson D. Current limitations of neuropsychological tests and assessment procedures. Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;33(2):200-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1552762
Kessels RPC. Improving precision in neuropsychological assessment: bridging the gap between classic paper-and-pencil tests and paradigms from cognitive neuroscience. Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;33(2):357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1518489
Marcopulos B, Łojek E. Introduction to the special issue: are modern neuropsychological assessment methods really “modern”? Reflections on the current neuropsychological test armamentarium. Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;33(2):187-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1560502
Collins B, MacKenzie J, Tasca GA, Scherling C, Smith A. Cognitive effects of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a dose-response study. Psychooncology. 2013;22(7):1517-1527. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3163
Scherwath A, Mehnert A, Schleimer B, et al. Neuropsychological function in high-risk breast cancer survivors after stem-cell supported high-dose therapy versus standard-dose chemotherapy: evaluation of long-term treatment effects. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(3):415-423. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdj108
Ahles TA, Saykin AJ, Furstenberg CT, et al. Neuropsychologic impact of standard-dose systemic chemotherapy in long-term survivors of breast cancer and lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):485-493. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2002.20.2.485
Freeman JR, Broshek DK. Assessing cognitive dysfunction in breast cancer: what are the tools? Clin Breast Cancer. 2002;3:S91-S99. https://doi.org/10.3816/CBC.2002.s.019
Wefel JS, Lenzi R, Theriault RL, Davis RN, Meyers CA. The cognitive sequelae of standard-dose adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(11):2292-2299. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20272
Komaki R, Meyers CA, Shin DM, et al. Evaluation of cognitive function in patients with limited small cell lung cancer prior to and shortly following prophylactic cranial irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol. 1995;33(1):179-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(95)00026-U
Jaeger J. Digit symbol substitution test: the case for sensitivity over specificity in neuropsychological testing. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2018;38(5):513-519. https://doi.org/10.1097/JCP.0000000000000941
Nelson WL, Suls J. New approaches to understand cognitive changes associated with chemotherapy for non-central nervous system tumors. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;46(5):707-721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.11.005
Srisurapanont M, Suttajit S, Eurviriyanukul K, Varnado P. Discrepancy between objective and subjective cognition in adults with major depressive disorder. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):3901. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04353-w
Sternberg S. High-speed scanning in human memory. Science. 1966;153(736):652-654. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.153.3736.652
Treviño M, Zhu X, Lu YY, et al. How do we measure attention? Using factor analysis to establish construct validity of neuropsychological tests. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 2021;6(1):1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00313-1
Chun MM, Golomb JD, Turk-Browne NB. A taxonomy of external and internal attention. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62(1):73-101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100427
Parasuraman R, Warm JS, See JE. Brain systems of vigilance. In: The Attentive Brain. The MIT Press; 1998:221-256.
Huang L, Mo L, Li Y. Measuring the interrelations among multiple paradigms of visual attention: an individual differences approach. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2012;38(2):414-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026314
Bundesen C. A theory of visual attention. Psychol Rev. 1990;97(4):523-547. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.97.4.523
Posner MI, Petersen SE. The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1990;13(1):25-42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325
Treisman AM, Gelade G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cogn Psychol. 1980;12(1):97-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
Skogsberg K, Grabowecky M, Wilt J, Revelle W, Iordanescu L, Suzuki S. A relational structure of voluntary visual-attention abilities. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015;41(3):761-789. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039000
Rosenberg M, Noonan S, DeGutis J, Esterman M. Sustaining visual attention in the face of distraction: a novel gradual-onset continuous performance task. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013;75(3):426-439. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0413-x
Rabin LA, Paolillo E, Barr WB. Stability in test-usage practices of clinical neuropsychologists in the United States and Canada over a 10-year period: a follow-up survey of INS and NAN members. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;31(3):206-230. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw007
Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Wicherts JM. The importance of measurement invariance in neurocognitive ability testing. Clin Neuropsychol. 2016;30(7):1006-1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1205136
Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170
Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociol Methods Res. 2016;21(2):230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
McDonald RP. An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality. J Classif. 1989;6(1):97-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908590
Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2002;9(2):233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; 2020. http://www.R-project.org/
Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(1):1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
Jorgenson TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y. SemTools: Useful Tools for Structural Equation Modeling; 2019. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools
Mirsky AF, Anthony BJ, Duncan CC, Ahearn MB, Kellam SG. Analysis of the elements of attention: a neuropsychological approach. Neuropsychol Rev. 1991;2(2):109-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01109051
Agelink van Rentergem JA, de Vent NR, Schmand BA, Murre JMJ, Staaks JPC, Huizenga HM. The factor structure of cognitive functioning in cognitively healthy participants: a meta-analysis and meta-analysis of individual participant data. Neuropsychol Rev. 2020;30(1):51-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-019-09423-6
Germine L, Nakayama K, Duchaine BC, Chabris CF, Chatterjee G, Wilmer JB. Is the web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012;19(5):847-857. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9
Chaytor NS, Barbosa-Leiker C, Germine LT, Fonseca LM, McPherson SM, Tuttle KR. Construct validity, ecological validity and acceptance of self-administered online neuropsychological assessment in adults. Clin Neuropsychol. 2021;35(1):148-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1811893