nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 29.06.2021 | Original Article

The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and its sub-scales: validation and updated normative data in an Italian population sample

verfasst von: Edoardo Nicolò Aiello, Antonella Esposito, Chiara Gramegna, Valentina Gazzaniga, Stefano Zago, Teresa Difonzo, Ildebrando Marco Appollonio, Nadia Bolognini

Erschienen in: Neurological Sciences | Ausgabe 2/2022

Abstract

Background

Deficits of executive functioning (EF) are frequently found in neurological disorders. The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) is one of the most widespread and psychometrically robust EF screeners in clinical settings. However, in Italy, FAB norms date back to 15 years ago; moreover, its validity against “EF-loaded” global cognitive screeners (e.g., the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA) has yet to be tested. This study thus aimed at (a) providing updated normative data for the Italian FAB and (b) assessing its convergent validity with the MoCA.

Methods

Four-hundred and seventy-five healthy Italian native speakers (306 females, 169 males; mean age: 61.08 ± 15.1; mean education: 11.67 ± 4.57) were administered by the MoCA and the FAB. FAB items were divided into three subscales: FAB-1 (linguistically mediated EF), FAB-2 (planning), and FAB-3 (inhibition). Regression-based norms were derived (equivalent scores) for all FAB measures.

Results

Age and education were predictive of all FAB measures, whereas no gender differences were detected. The FAB and its sub-scales were related to MoCA measures—the strongest associations being found with MoCA total and MoCA-EF scores. FAB sub-scales were both internally related and associated with FAB total scores.

Discussion

The FAB proved to have convergent validity with both global cognitive and EF measures in healthy individuals. The present study provides updated normative data for the FAB and its sub-scales in an Italian population sample, and thus supports an adaptive usage of this EF screener.

ESM1 (PDF 433 kb)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05392-y.

Edoardo Nicolò Aiello and Antonella Esposito contributed equally to this work

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-022-06087-8.

A correction to this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-022-06295-2.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Executive functioning (EF) comprises a multifaceted set of frontally mediated, noninstrumental cognitive processes that control instrumental domains and behavior [1]. Executive disorders are thus frequently found in a variety of neurological conditions of different etiologies that affect cortical/subcortical frontal structures [2].

Although second-level specific psychometric tests are to be preferred when assessing EF [3], screening instruments for executive deficits are often useful in clinical settings, such as providing with an optimal trade-off between informativity and both sensitivity and a rapid administration [4].

The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) [5] is an EF screener that requires 5–10’ to administer and consists of 6 tasks assessing different EF facets: (1) concept formation and abstract reasoning (similarities); (2) mental flexibility (phonemic verbal fluency); (3) motor programming (Luria motor sequences); (4) sensitivity to interference (conflicting instructions); (5) inhibitory control (go-no-go); (6) environmental autonomy (prehension behavior) [5, 6].

The FAB is one of the most widely used EF screeners worldwide; its psychometric properties, clinical usability, and neural correlates have been thoroughly investigated [7].

In Italy, the FAB has been adapted and normed, as well as validated in both healthy and clinical populations [6, 8]. However, current FAB Italian normative data date back to more than 15 years ago and sociodemographic changes require norms updating [9]. Moreover, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the FAB has been only validated against “non-executive” screeners in Italy [6]—e.g., the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [10]—whereas its association with “EF-loaded” screening measures, e.g., the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [11], has yet to be explored. In addition, FAB normative studies do not provide with norms for its subtests, despite this being an increasingly widespread approach for cognitive screeners in Italy [12, 13], as it allows greater flexibility for clinicians when using these instruments.

Accordingly, the two aims of the present study are (1) providing updated normative data for both FAB total and sub-test scales in a large Italian representative population sample and (2) validating the FAB and its subscales against the MoCA.

Subjects and methods

Participants

The sample consisted of N = 475 healthy Italian native speakers from different provinces of Northern Italy (Table 1). Participants had no history of neurological, psychiatric, or severe general medical conditions (i.e. severe internal and metabolic morbidities or systemic/organ failures). Studies that data come from were approved by the Research Evaluation Committee of the Department of Psychology of University of Milano-Bicocca on behalf of the Ethical Committee of the same university. Participants provided informed consent to participation and signed a data treatment disclaimer research purposes.

Table 1

Sample stratification for age, education, and sex (M/F: M=males, F=females)

	Age (M/F)
Education	35 ≤	36–45	46–55	56–65	66–75	76–85	86–95	> 95
5 ≤	0/0	0/1	0/0	0/3	1/18	11/33	4/5	1/0
6–11	1/1	6/5	9/26	20/15	5/10	6/21	4/2	0/0
12–16	6/7	4/8	20/42	31/33	7/5	5/9	1/6	0/0
17–21	3/5	1/7	6/13	17/22	0/1	1/2	0/2	0/0
> 21	0/0	0/2	0/2	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0

Cells show male/female ratio for each co-occurrence

Materials

Global cognition was assessed via the MoCA [12, 14], which encompasses subtests evaluating EF (MoCA-EF), attention (MoCA-A), language (MoCA-L), memory (MoCA-M), visuospatial functions (MoCA-VS), and orientation (MoCA-O). Supplementary Table 1 provides the protocol for the current FAB. FAB items (N = 6) were grouped into 3 subscales: FAB-1 comprising the first two items (similarities and phonemic verbal fluency, linguistically mediated EF); FAB-2, comprising the second two-item set (Luria motor sequences and conflicting instructions, planning); FAB-3, comprising the last two items (go-no-go and prehension behavior, inhibition). All participants were administered the MoCA first and then the FAB.

Statistical analyses

According to previous normative studies [15, 16], the minimum sample size was set at N = 287 by means of a power analysis (α = 0.05; 1-β = 0.9; f² = 0.05) for multiple linear regression (df_numerator = 3) analyses [17] via the R 3.6.3 package pwr [18].

Normality assumptions on both background and cognitive raw variables were checked by evaluating skewness and kurtosis values (judged as abnormal if ≥|1| and |3|, respectively) [19].

Associations of interest between quantitative variables were assessed by means of either Pearson’s or Spearman’s techniques. When judged as relevant, Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was applied.

According to the equivalent scores (ES) method [20, 21], raw scores (RSs) were adjusted for significant intervening background predictors (or their transforms) via regression-based equations. The cutoff was identified by computing outer and inner tolerance limits (oTL; iTL). Adjusted scores (ASs) were then standardized into a 5-level quasi-continuous scale: ES = 0 (ASs ≤ oTL; “abnormal”); ES = 4 (ASs > Mdn; “normal”); ES = 1, 2, and 3 (oTL < ASs ≤ Mdn; respectively, “borderline,” “low-end normal,” “normal”).

Analyses were performed via SPSS 27 [22] and R 3.6.3 [23]. Regression studies, as well as computations of both TLs and ES thresholds, were implemented according to guidelines and software solutions described in [24].

Results

Background and cognitive scores are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2

Participants’ background and cognitive scores

N	Sex (F/M)	Age (years)	Education (years)	MoCA	FAB	FAB-1	FAB-2	FAB-3
475	306/169	61.08 ± 15.1 (21–96)	11.67 ± 4.57 (1–25)	24.5 ± 3.95 (8–30)	15.9 ± 2.17 (9–18)	5.21 ± 0.93 (1–6)	5.41 ± 1.08 (0–6)	5.27 ± 1.14 (1–6)

F female; M male; MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment; FAB Frontal Assessment Battery; FAB-1, comprises the first two items (similarities and phonemic verbal fluency); FAB-2, the second two-item set (Luria motor sequences and conflicting instructions); FAB-3, the last two items (go-no-go and prehension behavior)

The vast majority of FAB scales were related to MoCA measures (Table 3): the strongest associations were found with MoCA-EF and total scores. FAB subtest scores were all associated with each other (0.21 ≤ r_s(475) ≤ 0.24; p < 0.001), as well as with FAB total scores (FAB-1: r_s(475) = 0.65; FAB-2: r_s(475) = 0.63; FAB-3: r_s(475) = 0.7).

Table 3

Correlations between FAB and MoCA scores

		MoCA	MoCA-EF	MoCA-L	MoCA-A	MoCA-M	MoCA-VS	MoCA-O
FAB	r_s	0.49	0.46	0.35	0.32	0.32	0.28	0.19
FAB	p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
FAB-1	r_s	0.4	0.48	0.24	0.2	0.23	0.28	0.12
FAB-1	p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	n.s
FAB-2	r_s	0.35	0.28	0.27	0.27	0.23	0.18	0.18
FAB-2	p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
FAB-3	r_s	0.3	0.27	0.22	0.22	0.21	0.18	0.11
FAB-3	p	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	n.s

FAB Frontal Assessment Battery (numbers following the acronym represent subtests); MoCA Montreal Cognitive Assessment; EF executive functioning; L language; A attention; M memory; O orientation; VS visuospatial. α_adjusted was set at 0.0017 (α/k = 0.05/28); n.s. not significant at α_adjusted

Age was negatively related to FAB-1 (r_s(475) = − 0.3; p < 0.001), − 2 (r_s(475) = − 0.36; p < 0.001), − 3 (r_s(475) = − 0.3; p < 0.001) and total (r_s(475) = − 0.44; p < 0.001) scores, whereas a positive association with education was detected: FAB-1 (r_s(475) = 0.35; p < 0.001), FAB-2 (r_s(475) = 0.24; p < 0.001), FAB-3 (r_s(475) = 0.31; p < 0.001), and total (r_s(475) = 0.42; p < 0.001). No sex differences were found: FAB-1 (t(473) = − 0.92; p = 0.357), FAB-2 (t(473) = 0.44; p = 0.66), FAB-3 (t(385.3) = 1.5; p = 0.25), and total (t(473) = 0.4; p = 0.689).

When simultaneously tested, age and education revealed to be predictive of FAB both total and subtest scores (age: − 0.17 ≤ β ≤ − 0.34; p ≤ 0.001; education: |0.15|≤ β ≤|0.33|; p ≤ 0.001). Cubic age and logarithmic education proved to be the most significant predictors of all FAB scales, with the exception of FAB-2 and FAB-3 that were best predicted by reciprocal education and quadratic age, respectively (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4

Adjustment grid according to age and education for FAB total raw score

Education	Age
Education	35	40	45	50	55	60	65	70	75	80	85	90	95
5	0.28	0.36	0.47	0.61	0.77	0.97	1.21	1.48	1.79	2.15	2.56	3.02	3.54
8	− 0.46	− 0.37	− 0.26	− 0.13	0.04	0.23	0.47	0.74	1.06	1.42	1.83	2.29	2.8
11	− 0.96	− 0.87	− 0.76	− 0.63	− 0.46	− 0.26	− 0.03	0.24	0.56	0.92	1.33	1.79	2.3
13	− 1.22	− 1.13	− 1.02	− 0.89	− 0.72	− 0.53	− 0.29	− 0.02	0.3	0.66	1.07	1.53	2.04
16	− 1.54	− 1.46	− 1.35	− 1.21	− 1.05	− 0.85	− 0.62	− 0.34	− 0.03	0.33	0.74	1.2	1.71
18	− 1.73	− 1.64	− 1.53	− 1.4	− 1.23	− 1.03	− 0.8	− 0.53	− 0.21	0.15	0.56	1.02	1.53
21	− 1.97	− 1.88	− 1.78	− 1.64	− 1.47	− 1.28	− 1.04	− 0.77	− 0.45	− 0.09	0.32	0.78	1.29

FAB Frontal Assessment Battery. Adjusted score = raw score + 0.000004*[(age^3)- 269,630.547368] -1.565729*[ln(education)-2.366383]. Significant decimals of adjustment factors are displayed. Adjustment factors have been extracted from the aforementioned formula and do not always reflect empirical co-occurrences

Table 5

Adjustment grids according to age and education for FAB-1, FAB-2, and FAB-3 raw scores

Subtest		Age
FAB-1	Education	35	40	45	50	55	60	65	70	75	80	85	90	95
	5	0.23	0.25	0.28	0.32	0.36	0.41	0.46	0.53	0.61	0.7	0.8	0.92	1.05
	8	-0.05	-0.03	-	0.03	0.07	0.12	0.18	0.25	0.33	0.42	0.52	0.63	0.76
	11	-0.25	-0.22	-0.2	-0.16	-0.12	-0.07	-0.01	0.05	0.13	0.22	0.33	0.44	0.57
	13	-0.35	-0.33	-0.3	-0.27	-0.22	-0.17	-0.12	-0.05	0.03	0.12	0.22	0.34	0.47
	16	-0.47	-0.45	-0.43	-0.39	-0.35	-0.3	-0.24	-0.17	-0.09	-	0.1	0.21	0.34
	18	-0.54	-0.52	-0.5	-0.46	-0.42	-0.37	-0.31	-0.24	-0.17	-0.08	0.03	0.14	0.27
	21	-0.64	-0.62	-0.59	-0.56	-0.52	-0.47	-0.41	-0.34	-0.26	-0.17	-0.07	0.05	0.18
FAB-2	5	-0.21	-0.17	-0.12	-0.05	0.03	0.13	0.25	0.39	0.54	0.72	0.93	1.16	1.41
	8	-0.4	-0.36	-0.31	-0.24	-0.16	-0.06	0.06	0.2	0.35	0.53	0.74	0.97	1.23
	11	-0.49	-0.45	-0.39	-0.33	-0.24	-0.14	-0.03	0.11	0.27	0.45	0.65	0.88	1.14
	13	-0.53	-0.48	-0.43	-0.36	-0.28	-0.18	-0.06	0.07	0.23	0.41	0.62	0.85	1.1
	16	-0.56	-0.52	-0.47	-0.4	-0.31	-0.22	-0.1	0.04	0.2	0.38	0.58	0.81	1.07
	18	-0.58	-0.54	-0.48	-0.42	-0.33	-0.23	-0.12	0.02	0.18	0.36	0.56	0.79	1.05
	21	-0.6	-0.56	-0.5	-0.44	-0.35	-0.25	-0.14	-	0.16	0.34	0.54	0.77	1.03
FAB-3	5	0.2	0.24	0.29	0.33	0.39	0.45	0.51	0.58	0.66	0.74	0.82	0.91	1.01
	8	-0.1	-0.06	-0.02	0.03	0.09	0.15	0.21	0.28	0.36	0.44	0.52	0.61	0.71
	11	-0.3	-0.26	-0.22	-0.17	-0.12	-0.06	0.01	0.08	0.15	0.23	0.32	0.41	0.5
	13	-0.41	-0.37	-0.33	-0.28	-0.22	-0.16	-0.1	-0.03	0.04	0.12	0.21	0.3	0.39
	16	-0.54	-0.5	-0.46	-0.41	-0.36	-0.3	-0.23	-0.16	-0.09	-0.01	0.08	0.17	0.26
	18	-0.62	-0.58	-0.53	-0.49	-0.43	-0.37	-0.31	-0.24	-0.16	-0.08	-	0.1	0.19
	21	-0.72	-0.68	-0.63	-0.58	-0.53	-0.47	-0.41	-0.34	-0.26	-0.18	-0.1	-0.01	0.09

FAB Frontal Assessment Battery; the number following the acronym indicates the subscale in exam. FAB-1 adjusted score = raw score + 0.000001*[(age^3)-269,630.547368]-0.607345*[ln(education)-2.366383]. FAB-2 adjusted score = raw score + 0.000002*[(age^3)-269,630.547368] + 2.527494*[(1/education)-0.105356]. FAB-3 adjusted score = raw score + 0.000103*[(age^2)-3958.627368]-0.640471*[ln(education)-2.366383]. Significant decimals of adjustment factors are displayed. Adjustment factors have been extracted from the aforementioned formula and do not always reflect empirical co-occurrences

Selected correction factors and adjustment equations for FAB total and subtest RSs are displayed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. TLs and ESs classifications for all FAB ASs are reported in Table 6.

Table 6

Equivalent Scores for the FAB-T, FAB-1, FAB-2, and FAB-3 adjusted scores

Equivalent scores
	oTL	iTL	0	1	2	3	4
FAB	12.02	13.16	≤ 12.02	12.03–13.71	13.72–15.1	15.11–16.24	≥ 16.25
FAB-1	3.49	3.81	≤ 3.49	3.5–4.35	4.36–4.76	4.77–5.49	≥ 5.5
FAB-2	2.74	3.76	≤ 2.74	2.75–4.45	4.46–5.41	5.42–5.69	≥ 5.7
FAB-3	2.8	3.12	≤ 2.8	2.81–3.57	3.58–5.09	5.1–5.65	≥ 5.66

FAB-T Frontal Assessment Battery (numbers following the acronym represent subtests); oTL outer tolerance limit; iTL inner tolerance limit

Discussion

The present work provides Italian practitioners with updated normative data for the FAB and its subtests. These norms cover a wider age and education range and are drawn from a larger sample size (N = 475) than those of previous normative studies (N = 236 [8] and N = 364 [6]). Moreover, norms for FAB subscales are provided—this representing a previously unreported feature that supports an adaptive usage of the screener.

This study overall replicates previous findings with respect to the range of FAB scores’ predictors in the Italian population: the performance increases with higher educational attainment and decreases with aging, while no sex differences are detected[6, 8]. It has nonetheless to be noted that the cutoff reported here (12.03), despite being similar to that derived by Iavarone et al. [8] (11.54), is more conservative than Appollonio et al.’s [6] (13.5). This aspect might reflect sociodemographic changes that have occurred in the last two decades in northern Italian population.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this contribution is the first showing convergent validity between the FAB (and its sub-scales) and an “EF-loaded” cognitive screener—i.e., the MoCA—in Italian healthy individuals. The present results also support the notion of the MoCA being a screening instrument sensitive to EF deficits, when compared to other screeners, such as the MMSE [25].

Declarations

Ethics approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants provided their informed consent to participation.

Conflicts of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt bestellen und 100 € sparen!

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

e.Med Neurologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Neurologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes, den Premium-Inhalten der neurologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Neurologie-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ³

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM1 (PDF 433 kb)

Jurado MB, Rosselli M (2007) The elusive nature of executive functions: a review of our current understanding. Neuropsychol Rev 17:213–233CrossRef

Godefroy O, Martinaud O, Narme P, Joseph PA, Mosca C, Lhommée E, Meulemans T, Czernecki V, Bertola C, Labauge P, Verny M (2018) Dysexecutive disorders and their diagnosis: a position paper. Cortex 109:322–335CrossRef

Chan RC, Shum D, Toulopoulou T, Chen EY (2008) Assessment of executive functions: review of instruments and identification of critical issues. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 23:201–216CrossRef

Moreira HS, Costa AS, Castro SL, Lima CF, Vicente SG (2017) Assessing executive dysfunction in neurodegenerative disorders: a critical review of brief neuropsychological tools. Front Aging Neurosci 9:369CrossRef

Dubois B, Slachevsky A, Litvan I, Pillon BFAB (2000) The FAB: a frontal assessment battery at bedside. Neurology 55:1621–1626CrossRef

Appollonio I, Leone M, Isella V, Piamarta F, Consoli T, Villa ML, Forapani E, Russo A, Nichelli P (2005) The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB): normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci 26:108–116CrossRef

Hurtado-Pomares M, Carmen Terol-Cantero M, Sánchez-Pérez A, Peral-Gómez P, Valera-Gran D, Navarrete-Muñoz EM (2018) The frontal assessment battery in clinical practice: a systematic review. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 33:237–251CrossRef

Iavarone A, Ronga B, Pellegrino L, Loré E, Vitaliano S, Galeone F, Carlomagno S (2004) The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB): normative data from an Italian sample and performances of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and frontotemporal dementia. Funct Neurol 19:191–195PubMed

Siciliano M, Chiorri C, Battini V, Sant’Elia V, Altieri M, Trojano L, Santangelo G (2019) Regression-based normative data and equivalent scores for Trail Making Test (TMT): an updated Italian normative study. Neurol Sci 40:469–477CrossRef

10.

Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198CrossRef

11.

Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699CrossRef

12.

Santangelo G, Siciliano M, Pedone R, Vitale C, Falco F, Bisogno R, Siano P, Barone P, Grossi D, Santangelo F, Trojano L (2015) Normative data for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci 36:585–591CrossRef

13.

Siciliano M, Raimo S, Tufano D, Basile G, Grossi D, Santangelo F, Trojano L, Santangelo G (2016) The Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R) and its sub-scores: normative values in an Italian population sample. Neurol Sci 37:385–392CrossRef

14.

Conti S, Bonazzi S, Laiacona M, Masina M, Coralli MV (2015) Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)-Italian version: regression based norms and equivalent scores. Neurol Sci 36:209–214CrossRef

15.

Brugnolo A, De Carli F, Accardo J, Amore M, Bosia LE, Bruzzaniti C, Cappa SF, Cocito L, Colazzo G, Ferrara M, Ghio L (2016) An updated Italian normative dataset for the Stroop color word test (SCWT). Neurol Sci 37:365–372CrossRef

16.

Tremolizzo L, Lizio A, Santangelo G, Diamanti S, Lunetta C, Gerardi F, Messina S, La Foresta S, Riva N, Falzone Y, Filippi M, Woolley SC, Sansone V, Siciliano M, Ferrarese C, Appollonio I, ALS-CBS Italian Study Group (2020) ALS Cognitive Behavioral Screen (ALS-CBS): normative values for the Italian population and clinical usability. Neurol Sci 41:835–841CrossRef

17.

Rothstein HR, Borenstein M, Cohen J, Pollack S (1990) Statistical power analysis for multiple regression/correlation: a computer program. Educ Psychol Measur 50:819–830CrossRef

18.

Champely S (2020) pwr: Basic functions for power analysis (R package version 1.3–0) [Computer software]. The Comprehensive R Archive Network. Available from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr. Accessed 20 Feb 2020

19.

Kim HY (2013) Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod 38:52–54CrossRef

20.

Capitani E, Laiacona M (2017) Outer and inner tolerance limits: their usefulness for the construction of norms and the standardization of neuropsychological tests. Clin Neuropsychol 31:1219–1230CrossRef

21.

Spinnler H, Tognoni G (1987) Standardizzazione e taratura italiana di test neuropsicologici. Ital J Neurol Sci 6:1–120

22.

IBM Corp (2021) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk: IBM Corp

23.

R Core Team (2019) R: A Language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.6.3) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org. Accessed 20 Feb 2020

24.

Aiello EN, Depaoli EG (2021) Norms and standardizations in neuropsychology via equivalent scores: software solutions and practical guides. Neurol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05374-0

25.

Siqueira GS, Hagemann PDM, Coelho DDS, Santos FHD, Bertolucci PH (2019) Can MoCA and MMSE be interchangeable cognitive screening tools? A systematic review. Gerontologist 59:e743–e763CrossRef

Titel: The Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) and its sub-scales: validation and updated normative data in an Italian population sample
verfasst von: Edoardo Nicolò Aiello
Antonella Esposito
Chiara Gramegna
Valentina Gazzaniga
Stefano Zago
Teresa Difonzo
Ildebrando Marco Appollonio
Nadia Bolognini
Publikationsdatum: 29.06.2021
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Neurological Sciences / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1590-1874
Elektronische ISSN: 1590-3478
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05392-y

Leitlinien kompakt für die Neurologie

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Neurologie

Nicht Creutzfeldt Jakob, sondern Abführtee-Vergiftung

29.05.2024 Hyponatriämie Nachrichten

Eine ältere Frau trinkt regelmäßig Sennesblättertee gegen ihre Verstopfung. Der scheint plötzlich gut zu wirken. Auf Durchfall und Erbrechen folgt allerdings eine Hyponatriämie. Nach deren Korrektur kommt es plötzlich zu progredienten Kognitions- und Verhaltensstörungen.

Schutz der Synapsen bei Alzheimer

29.05.2024 Morbus Alzheimer Nachrichten

Mit einem Neurotrophin-Rezeptor-Modulator lässt sich möglicherweise eine bestehende Alzheimerdemenz etwas abschwächen: Erste Phase-2-Daten deuten auf einen verbesserten Synapsenschutz.

Sozialer Aufstieg verringert Demenzgefahr

24.05.2024 Demenz Nachrichten

Ein hohes soziales Niveau ist mit die beste Versicherung gegen eine Demenz. Noch geringer ist das Demenzrisiko für Menschen, die sozial aufsteigen: Sie gewinnen fast zwei demenzfreie Lebensjahre. Umgekehrt steigt die Demenzgefahr beim sozialen Abstieg.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Update Neurologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Supplementary Information

Publisher's note

Introduction

Subjects and methods

Participants

Materials

Statistical analyses

Results

Discussion

Declarations

Ethics approval

Conflicts of interests

Publisher's note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Neurologie & Psychiatrie

e.Med Neurologie

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

The role of the Sapienza GLObal Bedside Evaluation of Swallowing after Stroke (GLOBE-3S) in the prevention of stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP)

High prevalence of self-reported non-motor symptoms and lack of correlation with motor severity in adult patients with idiopathic isolated dystonia

Correction to: Diagnosis and treatment of Chiari Malformation and syringomyelia in adults: International Consensus Document

Orthostatic hypotension in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis of prospective studies

Correction to: Norms and standardizations in neuropsychology via equivalent scores: software solutions and practical guides

Episodic long-term memory in post-infectious SARS-CoV-2 patients

Leitlinien kompakt für die Neurologie

Neu im Fachgebiet Neurologie

Nicht Creutzfeldt Jakob, sondern Abführtee-Vergiftung

Schutz der Synapsen bei Alzheimer

Sozialer Aufstieg verringert Demenzgefahr

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

Update Neurologie