SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Psychometrics and diagnostics of the Italian version of the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB) in non-demented Parkinson's disease patients.

Neurol Sci · 2024-03-11

DOI: 10.1007/s10072-024-07436-5PMID: 38467953

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundVerbal fluency (VF) tasks are known as suitable for detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in Parkinson's disease (PD). This study thus aimed to evaluate the psychometrics and diagnostics of the Alternate Verbal Fluency Battery (AVFB) by Costa et al. (2014) in an Italian cohort of non-demented PD patients, as well as to derive disease-specific cut-offs for it.MethodsN = 192 non-demented PD patients were screened with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and underwent the AVFB-which includes phonemic, semantic and alternate VF tests (PVF; SVF; AVF), as well as a Composite Shifting Index (CSI) reflecting the "cost" of shifting from a single- to a double-cued VF task. Construct validity and diagnostics were assessed for each AVFB measure against the MoCA. Internal reliability and factorial validity were also tested.ResultsThe MoCA proved to be strongly associated with PVF, SVF and AVF scores, whilst moderately with the CSI. The AVFB was internally consistent and underpinned by a single component; however, an improvement in both internal reliability and fit to its factorial structure was observed when dropping the CSI. Demographically adjusted scores on PVF, SVF and AVF tests were diagnostically sound in detecting MoCA-defined cognitive impairment, whilst this was not true for the CSI. Disease-specific cut-offs for PVF, SVF and AVF tests were derived.DiscussionIn conclusion, PVF, SVF and AVF tests are reliable, valid and diagnostically sound instruments to detect cognitive impairment in non-demented PD patients and are therefore recommended for use in clinical practice and research.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.