Contributions
Abstract: P911
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 8 Clinical assessment tools
Background: A computerized version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (c-SDMT) with embedded distractors can detect more subtle cognitive difficulties in people with MS (PwMS) than conventional testing (Patel et al., 2017). Data on practice effects with repeat testing are, however, lacking.
Objective: To assess the effects of practice on repeat c-SDMT testing with and without distractors.
Methods: A sample of 80 PwMS received two versions of the c-SDMT, one with standardized built-in real world distractors (ringing telephone, car horn) and one without. Tests were administered serially in a counterbalanced design with half the participants (n=40) receiving the c-SDMT with distractors first (followed by the non-distractor version) and the other half (n=40) the non-distractor version first (followed by the distractor version). Mean times between groups were analyzed using t-tests for cross sectional data and paired t-tests for repeat measures.
Results: The two groups were matched demographically. The group that completed the non-distractor version first had more participants with secondary progressive MS (25% vs. 15%) although this did not reach significance (p=0.26). A cross-sectional analysis at time 1 revealed no significant time differences between the distractor and non-distractor groups (p=0.09). Although the mean time to complete the test within the non-distractor group was almost 3 seconds slower for individuals with secondary progressive compared to those with relapsing-remitting MS, this did not reach significance (18.10 s (SD=4.98) vs. 15.57 s (SD=5.03), p=0.174). In both groups (i.e. distractors first or second), the mean time to complete the second c-SDMT was significantly faster than that for the first c-SDMT (p< 0.001 for both). A cross sectional analysis at time 2 showed that the distractor group was significantly slower than the non-distractor group (14.78 s (SD=5.03) vs. 12.84 s (SD=2.68), p=0.035).
Conclusions: With repeat testing, practice effects are evident on the c-SDMT irrespective of whether the distractor version is administered first or second. However, practice effects are attenuated in the presence of distractors. This suggests the c-SDMT with distractors may be preferable to the conventional SDMT for longitudinal studies.
References: Patel VP, Zambrana A, Walker LA, Feinstein A. Distraction adds to the cognitive burden in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2017; 23(1): 106-113.
Disclosure: Emily Donaldson: Nothing to disclose.
Abstract: P911
Type: Poster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 8 Clinical assessment tools
Background: A computerized version of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (c-SDMT) with embedded distractors can detect more subtle cognitive difficulties in people with MS (PwMS) than conventional testing (Patel et al., 2017). Data on practice effects with repeat testing are, however, lacking.
Objective: To assess the effects of practice on repeat c-SDMT testing with and without distractors.
Methods: A sample of 80 PwMS received two versions of the c-SDMT, one with standardized built-in real world distractors (ringing telephone, car horn) and one without. Tests were administered serially in a counterbalanced design with half the participants (n=40) receiving the c-SDMT with distractors first (followed by the non-distractor version) and the other half (n=40) the non-distractor version first (followed by the distractor version). Mean times between groups were analyzed using t-tests for cross sectional data and paired t-tests for repeat measures.
Results: The two groups were matched demographically. The group that completed the non-distractor version first had more participants with secondary progressive MS (25% vs. 15%) although this did not reach significance (p=0.26). A cross-sectional analysis at time 1 revealed no significant time differences between the distractor and non-distractor groups (p=0.09). Although the mean time to complete the test within the non-distractor group was almost 3 seconds slower for individuals with secondary progressive compared to those with relapsing-remitting MS, this did not reach significance (18.10 s (SD=4.98) vs. 15.57 s (SD=5.03), p=0.174). In both groups (i.e. distractors first or second), the mean time to complete the second c-SDMT was significantly faster than that for the first c-SDMT (p< 0.001 for both). A cross sectional analysis at time 2 showed that the distractor group was significantly slower than the non-distractor group (14.78 s (SD=5.03) vs. 12.84 s (SD=2.68), p=0.035).
Conclusions: With repeat testing, practice effects are evident on the c-SDMT irrespective of whether the distractor version is administered first or second. However, practice effects are attenuated in the presence of distractors. This suggests the c-SDMT with distractors may be preferable to the conventional SDMT for longitudinal studies.
References: Patel VP, Zambrana A, Walker LA, Feinstein A. Distraction adds to the cognitive burden in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2017; 23(1): 106-113.
Disclosure: Emily Donaldson: Nothing to disclose.