Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018;5(3):188-196.
doi: 10.14283/jpad.2018.20.

Detection of Rater Errors on Cognitive Instruments in a Clinical Trial Setting

Affiliations

Detection of Rater Errors on Cognitive Instruments in a Clinical Trial Setting

D J Connor et al. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2018.

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines errors committed by raters in a clinical trial of a memory enhancement compound.

Background: Findings of clinical trials are directly dependent on the quality of the data obtained but there is little literature on rates or nature of rater errors on cognitive instruments in a multi-site setting.

Design: Double-blind placebo-controlled study.

Setting: 21 clinical sites in North America.

Participants: Two hundred seventy-five participants.

Measurements: MMSE, WMS-R Logical Memory I and II, WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates I, WASi Vocabulary, WASi Matrix Reasoning, GDS and MAC-Q.

Results: The WMS-R Logical Memory I and II and WASi Vocabulary tests were found to have the greatest number of scoring errors. Few substantive errors were detected on source document review of the MMSE, GDS, MAC-Q and WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates I. Some additional administration and scoring issues were identified during feedback sessions with the raters.

Conclusions: Cognitive measures used in clinical trials are prone to errors which can be detected with proper monitoring. Some instruments are particularly prone to inter-rater variably and should therefore be targets for focused training and ongoing monitoring. Areas in need of further investigation to help inform and optimize quality of clinical trial data are discussed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hartling L, Hamm M, Milne A, Vandermeer B, et al. Validity and inter-rater reliability testing of quality assessment instruments. AHRQ Publication. 2012 - PubMed
    1. Schafer K, De Santi S, Schneider LS. Errors in ADAS-Cog Administration and Scoring May Undermine Clinical Trials Results. Curr Alz Res. 2010;6:S496–S497. - PubMed
    1. Connor DJ, Sabbagh MN. Administration and Scoring Variance on the ADASCog. J Alzheimers Dis. 2008;15:461–464. 10.3233/JAD-2008-15312 PubMed PMID: 18997299, PMCID 2727511. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Connor DJ, Sabbagh MN, Cummings JL. Comment on administration and scoring of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) in clinical trials. Alz Dem. 2008;4:390–394. 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.09.002 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Petersen RC, Thomas RG, Aisen PS, et al. Randomized controlled trials in mild cognitive impairment: Sources of variability. Neurology. 2017;88:1751–1758. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003907 PubMed PMID: 28381516, PMCID 5409843. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources