Background: We sought to identify optimal approaches by calibrating longitudinal cognitive performance across studies with different neuropsychological batteries. Methods: We examined four approaches to calibrate cognitive performance in nine longitudinal studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) (n = 10,875): (1) common test, (2) standardize and average available tests, (3) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with continuous indicators, and (4) CFA with categorical indicators. To compare precision, we determined the minimum sample sizes needed to detect 25% cognitive decline with 80% power. To compare criterion validity, we correlated cognitive change from each approach with 6-year changes in average cortical thickness and hippocampal volume using available MRI data from the AD Neuroimaging Initiative. Results: CFA with categorical indicators required the smallest sample size to detect 25% cognitive decline with 80% power (n = 232) compared to common test (n = 277), standardize-and-average (n = 291), and CFA with continuous indicators (n = 315) approaches. Associations with changes in biomarkers changes were the strongest for CFA with categorical indicators. Conclusions: CFA with categorical indicators demonstrated greater power to detect change and superior criterion validity compared to other approaches. It has wide applicability to directly compare cognitive performance across studies, making it a good way to obtain operational phenotypes for genetic analyses of cognitive decline among people with AD. i 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Keywords:
Calibration, Neuropsychological performance, Alzheimer’s disease
1.
Cornelis MC, Agrawal A, Cole JW, Hansel NN, Barnes KC, Beaty TH, et al; GENEVA Consortium: The Gene, Environment Association Studies Consortium (GENEVA): maximizing the knowledge obtained from GWAS by collaboration across studies of multiple conditions. Genet Epidemiol 2010;34:364-372.
2.
Manolio TA, Rodriguez LL, Brooks L, Abecasis G; Collaborative Association Study of Psoriasis, Ballinger D, et al: New models of collaboration in genome-wide association studies: the Genetic Association Information Network. Nat Genet 2007;39:1045-1051.
3.
Psaty BM, O'Donnell CJ, Gudnason V, Lunetta KL, Folsom AR, Rotter JI, et al; CHARGE Consortium: Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium: design of prospective meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies from 5 cohorts. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 2009;2:73-80.
4.
Sherva R, Tripodis Y, Bennett DA, Chibnik LB, Crane PK, de Jager PL, et al; Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium: Genome-wide association study of the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2014;10:45-52.
5.
Seminara D, Khoury MJ, O'Brien TR, Manolio T, Gwinn ML, Little J, et al; Human Genome Epidemiology Network; Network of Investigator Networks. The emergence of networks in human genome epidemiology: challenges and opportunities. Epidemiology 2007;18:1-8.
6.
Zeggini E, Ioannidis JP: Meta-analysis in genome-wide association studies. Pharmacogenomics 2009;10:191-201.
7.
Khachaturian AS, et al: Big data, aging, and dementia: pathways for international harmonization on data sharing. Alzheimers Dement 2013;9:S61-S62.
8.
Alzheimer's Association Expert Advisory Workgroup on NAPA: Workgroup on NAPA's scientific agenda for a national initiative on Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2012;8:357-371.
9.
Bauer DJ, Hussong AM: Psychometric approaches for developing commensurate measures across independent studies: traditional and new models. Psychol Methods 2009;14:101-125.
10.
Curran PJ, Hussong AM: Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychol Methods 2009;14:81-100.
11.
Barnes DE, Cenzer IS, Yaffe K, Ritchie CS, Lee SJ; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: A point-based tool to predict conversion from mild cognitive impairment to probable Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimer's Dement 2014, DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2013.12.014, Epub ahead of print.
12.
Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Loring DW: Neuropsychological Assessment. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004.
13.
Akshoomoff N, Newman E, Thompson WK, McCabe C, Bloss CS, Chang L, et al: The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: results from a large normative developmental sample (PING). Neuropsychology 2014;28:1-10.
14.
Weintraub S, Salmon D, Mercaldo N, Ferris S, Graff-Radford NR, Chui H, Cummings J, DeCarli C, Foster NL, Galasko D, Peskind E, Dietrich W, Beekly DL, Kukull WA, Morris JC: The Alzheimer's Disease Centers' Uniform Data Set (UDS): the neuropsychologic test battery. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2009;23:91-101.
15.
den Heijer T, Geerlings MI, Hoebeek FE, Hofman A, Koudstaal PJ, Breteler MM: Use of hippocampal and amygdalar volumes on magnetic resonance imaging to predict dementia in cognitively intact elderly people. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:57-62.
16.
den Heijer T, van der Lijn F, Koudstaal PJ, Hofman A, van der Lugt A, Krestin GP, et al: A 10-year follow-up of hippocampal volume on magnetic resonance imaging in early dementia and cognitive decline. Brain 2010;133:1163-1172.
17.
Sluimer JD, van der Flier WM, Karas GB, Fox NC, Scheltens P, Barkhof F, Vrenken H: Whole-brain atrophy rate and cognitive decline: longitudinal MR study of memory clinic patients. Radiology 2008;248:590-598.
18.
Sluimer JD, Bouwman FH, Vrenken H, Blankenstein MA, Barkhof F, van der Flier WM, Scheltens P: Whole-brain atrophy rate and CSF biomarker levels in MCI and AD: a longitudinal study. Neurobiol Aging 2010;31:758-764.
19.
Weiner MW, Veitch DP, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Cairns NJ, Green RC, et al; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: a review of papers published since its inception. Alzheimers Dement 2013;9:e111-e194.
20.
Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Buchman AS, Barnes LL, Boyle PA, Wilson RS: Overview and findings from the rush memory and aging project. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:646-663.
21.
Bennett DA, Schneider JA, Arvanitakis Z, Wilson RS: Overview and findings from the religious orders study. Curr Alzheimer Res 2012;9:628-645.
22.
Breitner JC, Wyse BW, Anthony JC, Welsh-Bohmer KA, Steffens DC, Norton MC, et al: APOE-epsilon4 count predicts age when prevalence of AD increases, then declines: the Cache County Study. Neurology 1999;53:321-331.
23.
Green RC, Schneider LS, Amato DA, Beelen AP, Wilcock G, Swabb EA, et al; Tarenflurbil Phase 3 Study Group: Effect of tarenflurbil on cognitive decline and activities of daily living in patients with mild Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:2557-2564.
24.
Doody RS, Raman R, Farlow M, Iwatsubo T, Vellas B, Joffe S, et al; Semagacestat Study Group: A phase 3 trial of semagacestat for treatment of Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2013;369:341-350.
25.
Lovestone S, Francis P, Kloszewska I, Mecocci P, Simmons A, et al: AddNeuroMed - the European collaboration for the discovery of novel biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1180:36-46.
26.
Kukull WA, Higdon R, Bowen JD, et al: Dementia and Alzheimer disease incidence: a prospective cohort study. Arch Neurol 2002;59:1737-1746.
27.
Morris JC, Weintraub S, Chui HC, Cummings J, Decarli C, et al: The Uniform Data Set (UDS): clinical and cognitive variables and descriptive data from Alzheimer Disease Centers. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006;20:210-216.
28.
Crane PK, Narasimhalu K, Gibbons LE, Mungas DM, Haneuse S, Larson EB, et al: Item response theory facilitated cocalibrating cognitive tests and reduced bias in estimated rates of decline. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:1018-1027.
29.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: ‘Mini-mental state'. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198.
30.
Gross AL, Jones RN, Fong TG, Tommet D, Inouye SK: Calibration and validation of an innovative approach for estimating general cognitive performance. Neuroepidemiology 2014;42:144-153.
31.
Proust-Lima C, Amieva H, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H: Sensitivity of four psychometric tests to measure cognitive changes in brain aging-population-based studies. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:344-350.
32.
Cronbach LJ: Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16: 297-334.
33.
Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V: Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods 2004;7:191.
34.
Kruggel F, Turner J, Muftuler LT; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative: Impact of scanner hardware and imaging protocol on image quality and compartment volume precision in the ADNI cohort. Neuroimage 2010;49:2123-2133.
35.
Dale AM, Fischl B, Sereno MI: Cortical surface-based analysis. I. Segmentation and surface reconstruction. Neuroimage 1999;9:179-194.
36.
Prabhakaran V, Nair VA, Austin BP, La C, Gallagher TA, Wu Y, et al: Current status and future perspectives of magnetic resonance high-field imaging: a summary. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2012;22:373-397.
37.
Desikan RS, S3gonne F, Fischl B, Quinn BT, Dickerson BC, Blacker D, et al: An automated labeling system for subdividing the human cerebral cortex on MRI scans into gyral based regions of interest. Neuroimage 2006;31:968-980.
38.
Feher EP, Mahurin RK, Doody RS, Cooke N, Sims J, Pirozzolo FJ: Establishing the limits of the Mini-Mental State. Examination of ‘subtests'. Arch Neurol 1992;49:87-92.
39.
Lord FM: The relation of test score to the trait underlying the test. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1953;13:517-549.
40.
Samejima F: Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika 1969;35:139.
41.
Takane Y, de Leeuw J: On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika 1987;52:393-408.
42.
Langa KM, Plassman BL, Wallace RB, Herzog AR, Heeringa SG, Ofstedal MB, et al: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study: study design and methods. Neuroepidemiology 2005;25:181-191.
43.
Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-310.
44.
Laird NM, Ware JH: Random effects models for longitudinal data: an overview of recent results. Biometrics 1982;38:963-974.
45.
Rubin DB: Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY, Wiley Sons, 1987.
46.
Muth3n B: Latent variable hybrids: overview of old and new models; in Hancock GR, Samuelsen KM (eds): Advances in latent variable mixture models. Charlotte, NC, Information Age Publishing. 2008, pp 1-24.
47.
Mungas D, Reed BR: Application of item response theory for development of a global functioning measure of dementia with linear measurement properties. Stat Med 2000;19:1631-1644.
48.
Wouters H, van Gool WA, Schmand B, Zwinderman AH, Lindeboom R: Three sides of the same coin: measuring global cognitive impairment with the MMSE, ADAS-cog and CAMCOG. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010;25:770-779.
49.
Bennett SN, Caporaso N, Fitzpatrick AL, Agrawal A, Barnes K, Boyd HA, et al; GENEVA Consortium: Phenotype harmonization and cross-study collaboration in GWAS consortia: the GENEVA experience. Genet Epidemiol 2011;35:159-173.
50.
Hendrie HC, Albert MS, Butters MA, Gao S, Knopman DS, Launer LJ, et al: The NIH Cognitive and Emotional Health Project. Report of the Critical Evaluation Study Committee. Alzheimer's Dement 2006;2:12-32.
51.
Wang W-C: Effects of anchor item methods on the detection of differential item functioning within the family of Rasch models. Journal of Experimental Education 2004;72: 221-261.
52.
Jones RN, Fonda SJ: Use of an IRT-based latent variable model to link different forms of the CES-D from the Health and Retirement Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2004;39:828-835.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.