Observational analysis shows significant practice effects on cognition and functional measures in older adults, indicating potential implications for dementia prevention.
Objective: Practice effects on neuropsychological tests have been widely documented. However, little is known about whether improvements occur when measures of daily functioning are repeated. Therefore, the current study examined short-term practice effects on both neuropsychological and functional measures. Method: One hundred ninety-four older adults, 86% of whom were cognitively unimpaired and 14% of whom were cognitively impaired, completed a battery of neuropsychological and functional (both rating scales and performance-based measures) assessments during a baseline visit (Time 1) and again approximately one week later (Time 2). Repeated measures ANCOVAs evaluated for changes from Time 1 to Time 2 on both sets of tests. Results: Statistically significant improvements were observed across one week on the neuropsychological test scores (p<.001), especially on the memory tests. Additionally, significant improvements were observed on the functional test scores (p<.001) from Time 1 to Time 2, especially on the performance-based measures. Interactions between group (unimpaired vs. impaired) and time were observed on the neuropsychological scores, but not the functional scores. However, these interaction analyses were limited by a small number of impaired participants. Conclusions: Consistent with our hypothesis, short-term practice effects were observed on both neuropsychological and functional measures; however, they tended to be larger on the neuropsychological measures. While further research is required, short-term stability/changes in cognitive and functional measures may predict long-term stability/changes in those measures, with the absence of practice effects potentially serving as an indicator of the development of dementia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Duff et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: