Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2018
Intraindividual variability in neurocognitive performance: No influence due to HIV status or self-reported effort.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Levine Andrew J, Martin Eileen, Munro Cynthia A, Sacktor Ned, Horvath Steve, Becker James T, Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study–Neuropsychology Working Group
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are estimated to affect approximately 50% of infected individuals at any one time. Dispersion, a type of intraindividual variability in neurocognitive test performance, has been identified as a potential behavioral marker of HAND; however, the specificity of dispersion to HAND and how it is influenced by participant effort when taking neurocognitive tests remain unclear.
METHOD: Data were analyzed from 996 (474 HIV-, 522 HIV+) men enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). Dispersion was calculated based on the standard deviation of an individual's test scores within a single assessment. Effort was determined using the Visual Analogue Effort Scale. Predictors of dispersion were determined using stepwise linear regression. Dispersion was compared between the HIV serostatus groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), considering demographic and psychosocial variables that differed between the groups.
RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, dispersion was not influenced by effort. Instead, poorer neurocognitive ability and race were the sole predictors of dispersion. Dispersion did not differ between the serostatus groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that dispersion is a valid indicator of neurocognitive dysfunction that is not due to suboptimal effort; however, it is not specific to HIV and is therefore of limited utility as a behavioral marker of HIV-related neurocognitive impairment.
METHOD: Data were analyzed from 996 (474 HIV-, 522 HIV+) men enrolled in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). Dispersion was calculated based on the standard deviation of an individual's test scores within a single assessment. Effort was determined using the Visual Analogue Effort Scale. Predictors of dispersion were determined using stepwise linear regression. Dispersion was compared between the HIV serostatus groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), considering demographic and psychosocial variables that differed between the groups.
RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, dispersion was not influenced by effort. Instead, poorer neurocognitive ability and race were the sole predictors of dispersion. Dispersion did not differ between the serostatus groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that dispersion is a valid indicator of neurocognitive dysfunction that is not due to suboptimal effort; however, it is not specific to HIV and is therefore of limited utility as a behavioral marker of HIV-related neurocognitive impairment.