The Test of Visuospatial Construction: A Novel Test of Non-motoric Visuoconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The Test of Visuospatial Construction (TVSC) was designed as an easily administered measure of non-motor visuoconstruction, though only preliminary data exists regarding the clinical utility of this task. The current study examined the diagnostic accuracy of the TVSC by comparing performance between healthy subjects and various clinical groups. The authors also wanted to determine whether previous findings could be replicated regarding its effectiveness at tracking cognitive decline. METHOD: Archival data collected over a period of more than 10 years were utilized and the overall sample consisted of 955 individuals, 372 healthy subjects, and 583 subjects who were categorized into various clinical groups. Only TVSC test data and demographic variables were utilized for statistical analyses in this study. RESULTS: The control group obtained significantly higher scores on the TVSC than the clinical groups. AUC values were indicative of excellent discrimination between cases and controls. Exploratory ROC curve analyses suggested adequate to excellent discrimination between the control group and the individual clinical groups as well as between the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) subgroups and the two dementia groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the TVSC can effectively differentiate between healthy subjects and neurologically compromised individuals. Additionally, the TVSC may be able to measure the progressive decline in visuoconstructive abilities that occurs as patients traverse the spectrum of MCI and dementia.

Test of visuospatial construction: Validity evidence in extremely low birth weight and late preterm children at early school age.

The Test of Visuospatial Construction (TVSC), a measure of visuoconstruction that does not rely on upper extremity motor response or written production, was administered to extremely low birth weight (ELBW), late preterm (LPT), and term participants at preschool (n = 355) and kindergarten (n = 265) ages. TVSC showed statistically significant weak-to-moderate positive correlations (age 3: r = .118-.303; age 6: r = .138-.348) with Developmental VMI, Differential Ability Scales-II Copying, Matrices, and Pattern Construction subtests, Baron-Hopkins Board Test, and the Purdue Pegboard. One-way ANOVA indicated ELBW performed worse than Term (p = .044) on visuospatial construction at age 3 with a small-to-medium effect size (d = -0.43). No other statistically significant differences were found at age 3 on the TVSC (ELBW/LPT: p = .608, d = -0.17; LPT/Term: p = .116, d = -0.31). At age 6, ELBW participants performed worse than LPT participants (p = .027) and Term participants (p = .012); LPT participants did not differ from Term participants. Small effect sizes at age 3 (ELBW < LPT, d = -0.17; ELBW < Term, d = -0.43) were notably larger at age 6 (ELBW < LPT, d = -0.42; ELBW < Term, d = -0.53). Important practical differences showing LPT participants performed below Term participants (d = -0.31) at age 3 were no longer evident at age 6 (d = -0.097). These findings provide preliminary evidence of TVSC validity supporting its use to detect neuropsychological impairment and to recommend appropriate interventions in young preterm children.

Are the indices of the RBANS sufficient for differentiating Alzheimer's disease and subcortical vascular dementia?

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and subcortical vascular dementia (SVaD) are among the most prevalent dementias and they often show specific patterns of cognitive dysfunction. This study examined whether differences exist between groups on the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) that could assist with differential diagnosis. The examiners utilized the NINCDS-ADRDA and the NINDS-AIREN criteria to identify 39 probable AD and 29 probable SVaD patients. A battery of neuropsychological tests was performed and neuroimaging was reviewed for all subjects. Analyses revealed that the SVaD group performed significantly better on the Delayed Memory Index (DMI) and its subtests measuring Recognition, Contextual Memory, and Figure Recall. In contrast to previous research, there were no differences between groups on immediate memory tasks, and post hoc analyses revealed no differences on any other index or subtest. The results also suggested that the DMI and its subtests and the Story Memory subtest of the Immediate Memory Index have better sensitivity to AD, better specificity to SVaD, and roughly equivalent positive predictive power compared with other components of the RBANS. Overall, findings suggest that the indices and subtests of the RBANS may be limited in differentiating AD versus SVaD, except for the DMI and its subtests.