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
Review
. 2023 Sep;17(3):491-504.
doi: 10.1111/jnp.12318. Epub 2023 Apr 26.

Oxford cognitive screen: A critical review and independent psychometric evaluation

Donnchadh Murphy  1   2 , Emily Cornford  1 , Alice Higginson  1 , Alyson Norman  1 , Rebecca Long  3 , Rupert Noad  1   3
Affiliations
Review

Oxford cognitive screen: A critical review and independent psychometric evaluation

Donnchadh Murphy et al. J Neuropsychol. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

The Oxford cognitive screen (OCS) is a stroke-specific cognitive screening assessment. Although the test developers have provided psychometric information for the assessment, the OCS has received minimal external scrutiny, with which to triangulate the underpinning psychometrics. The purpose of this study is to provide a critical review and independent validation of the OCS. This study analysed data from an anonymised clinical database, which consisted of 316 patients who were assessed using the OCS on an Acute Stroke Unit. The rates of impairment on tests of memory and receptive communication were lower than expectation, suggesting that these subtests may be relatively insensitive. Patients with aphasia were more likely to be unable to categorised as impaired on non-language tests, suggesting that they remain sensitive to language processing or non-dominant hand usage. Some of the subtests of the OCS achieve high retest reliability, which makes them good candidates for measuring cognitive change over time. Although the OCS has many advantages, it is also important to adequately consider its limitations, that is insensitivity to memory problems, the potential confounding impact of non-dominant hand usage, and the potential that some tests may sample overall cognitive ability instead of domain-specific functioning.

Keywords: Oxford cognitive screen; cognitive screening; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Barbay, M., Diouf, M., Roussel, M., Godefroy, O., & GRECOGVASC Study Group. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence in post-stroke neurocognitive disorders in hospital-based studies. Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, 46(5-6), 322-334.
    1. Binder, L. M., Iverson, G. L., & Brooks, B. L. (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal” neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24(1), 31-46.
    1. Bould, J., Hepworth, L., Howard, C., Currie, J., & Rowe, F. (2022). The impact of visual impairment on completion of cognitive screening assessments: A post-hoc analysis from the IVIS study. The British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 18(1), 65-75.
    1. Brambilla, M., Cerasetti, M., Pepe, F., Pini, E., Pomati, S., Magni, E., Berlingeri, M., & Pantoni, L. (2021). Comparison of Oxford cognitive screen and Montreal cognitive assessment feasibility in the stroke unit setting. A pilot study. Cerebral Circulation - Cognition & Behavior, 2, 100021.
    1. British Psychological Society. (2010). Psychological services for stroke survivors and their families - Briefing paper 19. BPS.

LinkOut - more resources