This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Coo, H Articles by Brunet, D G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Coo, H Articles by Brunet, D G Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test: to what extent is it performed as instructed, and is it associated with disease course?

Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

W M Hopman

Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6, Clinical Research Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 2V7, hopmanw{at}kgh.kari.net

C M Edgar

Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 2V7

E V McBride

Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 2V7

D G Brunet

Multiple Sclerosis Clinic, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 2V7, Department of Medicine, Division of Neurology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

One commonly used outcome measure in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials is the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite, which includes the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) as a measure of cognitive function. Concerns have been raised about the standard PASAT scoring method, whereby the number of correct responses is summed. This method does not take into account whether the test is performed as intended, which may affect interpretation of the results. Accordingly, another scoring method has been proposed, which examines the number of times a correct response is immediately preceded by another correct response (termed a dyad). We compared the two scoring methods for the PASAT, and found that the mean percentage of correct responses not accounted for by dyads ranged from 27.5% to 49.5%, indicating that much of the time the test is not performed as instructed. We also examined disease course and the PASAT score, as studies have produced conflicting results as to whether disease course is associated with cognitive impairment. Although disease course was significantly associated with the PASAT score, it accounted for little of the variation in scores, even when adjusting for other predictors. Finally, as 14.2% of participants refused to do the PASATor failed to complete it, we also examined whether the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), a self-reported measure of cognitive function, is a potential proxy measure for the PASAT. The correlation between the two tools was low (-0.14), suggesting that the PDQ is not a useful substitute for the PASAT.

Key Words: cognition • disease course • multiple sclerosis • PASAT

Multiple Sclerosis, Vol. 11, No. 1, 85-89 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/1352458505ms1124oa


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Solari, A. Motta, D. Radice, and L. Mendozzi A shortened version of PASAT-3 is feasible Multiple Sclerosis, September 1, 2007; 13(8): 1020 - 1025. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E Rosti, P Hamalainen, K Koivisto, and L Hokkanen The PASAT performance among patients with multiple sclerosis: analyses of responding patterns using different scoring methods Multiple Sclerosis, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 586 - 593. [Abstract] [PDF]