Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31242497›Full record

ArticleGerontology2020

Test Administration Methods and Cognitive Test Scores in Older Adults with Hearing Loss.

Jing Shen, Melissa Sherman, Pamela E Souza

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gerontology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation of a non-auditory neurocognitive test battery in hearing-impaired according to age.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Impact of Hearing Loss on Geriatric Assessment.Clinical interventions in aging · 2020
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jing ShenDepartment of Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA, jing.shen@wmich.edu.
Melissa ShermanCompass Health Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Pamela E SouzaDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA.
Compass (United States) · USNorthwestern University · USWestern Michigan University · US

Funding

Characterizing Variability in Hearing Aid Outcomes Among Older AdultsR01DC012289 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SOUZA, PAMELA E. · 2012 to 2021
$3.7M
Ability of older adults to benefit from dynamic pitch for speech recognition in noiseF32DC014629 · NIDCD · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SHEN, JING · 2015 to 2016
$111k
NIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC014629NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC012289
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In light of the high prevalence of hearing loss and cognitive impairment in the aging population, it is important to know how cognitive tests should be administered for older adults with hearing loss. The purpose of the present study is to examine this question with a cognitive screening test and a working memory test. Specifically, we asked the following questions in 2 experiments. First, does a controlled amplification method affect cognitive test scores? Second, does test modality (visual vs. auditory) impact cognitive test scores? Three test administration conditions were created for both Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and working memory test (a word recognition and recall test): auditory amplified, auditory unamplified, and visual. The auditory administration was implemented through a computer program to control for presentation level while the visual condition was implemented through timed computer slides. Data were collected from older individuals with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss. We did not find any effect of amplification or test modality on the total score of the cognitive screening test (i.e., MoCA). Amplification improved working memory performance as measured by word recall performance, but test modality (auditory vs. visual) did not. These results are consistent with literature in demonstrating a downstream effect of audibility on working memory performance. From a clinical perspective, these findings are informative for developing clinical administration protocols of these tests for older individuals with hearing loss.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overChicagoCognitive DysfunctionFemaleHearing AidsHearing Loss, SensorineuralHumansMaleMental Status and Dementia TestsAgingCognitive impairmentCognitive screeningHearing loss

Identifiers

PMID31242497
PMCPMC6930984
OpenAlexW2958706542

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.