The cognitive characteristics and assessment scales for the illiteracy
秦若梦,罗财妹,李梦春,赵辉,柏峰,徐运
DOI: https://doi.org/10.11817/j.issn.1673-9248.2021.06.006
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To explore the cognitive characteristics of the illiterate elderly and provide advice for the improvement of cognitive scales.Methods:358 illiterate elderly people were retrospectively included from the memory decline clinic of Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital and community screening from April 2016 to November 2019. Subjects were divided into normal control, subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia group according to mini-mental status examination (MMSE) and Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). Scores of each cognitive item were compared among the adjacent groups.Results:The score of time-orientation was worse in SCD group than that in the normal control group [4 (5, 3) vs 5 (5, 4)] significantly (t=3.047, P=0.003). MCI group performed worse than SCD group in calculation, repeat, writing, copying, clock-contour, clock-numbers, clock-hands, digit-backward, tapping, fluency, repeat (MoCA), naming (MoCA) and delayed-recall (MoCA) [2 (3, 1) vs 4 (5, 3); 52 (50.0%) vs 38 (76.0%); 2 (1.9%) vs 10 (20.0%); 13 (12.5%) vs 27 (54.0%); 76 (73.8%) vs 47 (94.0%); 5 (4.9%) vs 25 (50.0%); 4 (3.9%) vs 19 (38.0%); 21 (20.2%) vs 29 (58.0%); 40 (38.5%) vs 43 (86.0%); 37 (35.6%) vs 42 (84.0%); 1 (1.0%) vs 11 (22.0%); 1 (2, 0) vs 2 (3, 2); 0 (1, 0) vs 1 (3, 0)] significantly (t=-5.941, P＜0.001; χ2=9.398, P=0.002; χ2=15.357, P＜0.001; χ2=30.245, P＜0.001; χ2=8.725, P=0.003; χ2=43.521, P＜0.001; χ2=30.673, P＜0.001; χ2=21.644, P＜0.001; χ2=30.169, P＜0.001; χ2=31.155, P＜0.001; χ2=20.594, P＜0.001; t=6.022, P＜0.001; t=4.937, P＜0.001). In dementia group, the score in time orientation, space orientation, registration, calculation, delayed recall (MMSE), repeat (MMSE), command, tapping and classification-choice-cue were worse than that in MCI group [2 (3, 1) vs 4 (5, 2); 4 (5, 3) vs 5 (5, 5); 2 (3, 1) vs 3 (3, 2); 1 (1, 0) vs 2 (3, 1); 0 (1, 0) vs 2 (2, 0); 2 (3, 1) vs 3 (3, 3); 25 (27.8%) vs 52 (50.0%); 16 (17.8%) vs 40 (38.5%); 0 (1, 0) vs 1 (1, 0)] with significance (t=-7.946, P＜0.001; t=-6.012, P＜0.001; t=-4.870, P＜0.001; t=-6.927, P＜0.001; t=-5.456, P＜0.001; t=-6.997, P＜0.001; χ2=9.954, P=0.002; χ2=9.483, P=0.002; t=2.745, P=0.007).Conclusion:Orientation, registration, calculation, repeat, copying, clock-hands, and tapping showed well discriminant power among groups. Reading, trail, cube, naming (MMSE) were inappropriate for the illiteracy.