Harrison John E
Metis Cognition Ltd, Park House Kilmington Common Wiltshire UK.
Alzheimer Center AU Medical Center Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2020 May 15;12(1):e12009. doi: 10.1002/dad2.12009. eCollection 2020.
In this commentary I consider the issues raised in Schneider and Goldberg's review of composite cognitive and functional measures. I find much to agree with in their commentary and especially their concerns regarding satisfactory psychometric validation of composite measures. I endorse also their provision for analysis by cognitive domain, backed by the use of statistical methods for grouping test variables. The authors helpfully mention the possibility that treatment effects may be peculiar to specific domains of cognitive function. I develop this view and argue for exploratory studies of new therapeutic interventions to include broad assessments of the cognitive domains known to be compromised in early Alzheimer's disease. I suggest that the results of exploratory studies be used to help identify target domains for confirmatory studies. Finally, I note that computerized cognitive composite assessments have often been validated in the fashion that the authors recommend for composite measures.
在这篇评论中,我思考了施奈德和戈德堡对综合认知与功能测量方法的综述中提出的问题。我发现他们的评论中有很多观点我都认同,尤其赞同他们对综合测量方法令人满意的心理测量学验证的关注。我也支持他们提出的按认知领域进行分析的方法,并以用于对测试变量进行分组的统计方法为后盾。作者们有益地提到了治疗效果可能特定于认知功能的特定领域这一可能性。我拓展了这一观点,并主张对新的治疗干预措施进行探索性研究,以纳入对已知在早期阿尔茨海默病中受损的认知领域的广泛评估。我建议将探索性研究的结果用于帮助确定验证性研究的目标领域。最后,我注意到计算机化认知综合评估常常是以作者们为综合测量方法所推荐的方式进行验证的。