As­ses­sment of cognitive functions us­­ing short repeatable neuropsychological batteries

Authors: G. Věchetová 1,2;  E. Bolceková 1,2;  Z. Jarošová 3;  H. Orlíková 3;  M. Preiss 1,4
Authors‘ workplace: Národní ústav duševního zdraví, Klecany 1;  Neurologická klinika, 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze 2;  Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy, Praha 3;  University of New York in Prague, Praha 4
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2018; 81(1): 29-36
Category: Review Article
doi: 10.14735/amcsnn201829


Review presents the current approach of using short repeatable neuropsychological batteries and refers to recent literature focused on this type of diagnostic process. The trend of the last decade highlights the need for the development of neuropsychological diagnostic measures, which would show good psychometric qualities and at the same time respond to the demand of a more expedient assessment and repeatability of results over time with a lower risk of the practice effect. First of all, the article proposes desirable characteristics of cognitive batteries and proposes the posibilities of interpretation of their outcomes. Secondly, the characteristics of the existing short repeatable neuropsychological batteries are discussed, based on the criteria of 1. availability of parallel versions; 2. time duration less than 45 min; 3. cognitive profile as an outcome based on the results; and 4. availability in Czech clinical or research practice. The following methods will be discussed: Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Neuropsychological Assessment Battery –  Screening Module (NAB-SM), Dementia Rating Scale –  2 (DRS-2), Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB), and Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP)

Key words:
neuropsychology – neuropsychological assessment – cognition – RBANS – NAB-SM – DRS-2 – ADAS-Cog – MCCB – SCIP

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.


1. Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E et al. The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9(1): 63– 75. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2012.11.007.

2. American Psychiatric As­sociation. Dia­gnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington: American Psychiatric As­sociation 2013.

3. Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D et al. The dia­gnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer‘s dis­ease: recom­mendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer‘s As­sociation workgroups on dia­gnostic guide­lines for Alzheimer‘s dis­ease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7(3): 270– 279. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2011.03.008.

4. Lezak MD, Howieson DB, Bigler ED et al. Neuropsychological as­ses­sment. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press 2012.

5. Reitan R, Wolfson D. The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: theory and clinical interpretation. 2nd ed. Tucson: Neuropsychology Press 1993.

6. Weintraub S, Salmon D, Mercaldo N et al. The Alzheimer’s Dis­ease Centers’ Uniform Data Set (UDS): The neuropsychological test battery. Alzheimer Dis As­soc Disord 2009; 23: 91– 101. doi: 10.1097/ wad.0b013e318191c7dd.

7. Strauss E, Sherman E, Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Com­mentary. New York: Oxford University Press 2006.

8. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grad­­ing the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12(3): 189– 198.

9. Nasreddine ZS, Phil­lips NA, Bédirian V et al. The Montreal Cognitive As­ses­sment, MoCA: a brief screen­­ing tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53(4): 695– 699. doi: 10.1111/ j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.

10. Sattler JM. As­ses­sment of children: cognitive applications. 4th ed. San Diego: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher 2001.

11. Nun­nal­ly JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1994.

12. Andrews G, Peters L, Tees­son M. The measurement of consumer outcomes in mental health. Canber­ra: Australian Government Publish­­ing Services 1994.

13. Burlingame GM, Lambert MJ, Reisinger CW et al. Pragmatics of track­­ing mental health outcomes in a man­aged care setting. J Ment Health Adm 1995; 22(3): 226– 236. doi: 10.1007/ bf02521118.

14. Randolph C. RBANS Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status: manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation 1998.

15. Preiss M, Kučerová H et al. Neuropsychologie v psychiatrii. Praha: Grada 2006.

16. Beatty WW. RBANS analysis of verbal memory in multiple sclerosis. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2004; 19(6): 825– 834. doi: 10.1016/ j.acn.2003.12.001.

17. Aupperle RL, Beatty WW, Shelton F et al. Three screen­­ing batteries to detect cognitive impairment in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2002; 8(5): 382– 389. doi: 10.1191/ 1352458502ms832oa.

18. Larson EB, Kirschner K, Bode R et al. Construct and predictive validity of the Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status in the evaluation of stroke patients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005; 27(1): 16– 32. doi: 10.1080/ 138033990513564.

19. Mooney S, Has­sanein TI, Hilsabeck RC et al. Utility of the Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) in patients with end-stage liver dis­ease await­­ing liver transplant. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2007; 22(2): 175– 186. doi: 10.1016/ j.acn.2006.12.005.

20. Hobart MP, Goldberg R, Bartko JJ et al. Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status as a screen­­ing test in schizophrenia: II. convergent/ discriminant validity and dia­gnostic group comparisons. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156(12): 1951– 1957. doi: 10.1176/ ajp.156.12.1951.

21. Karantzoulis S, Novitski J, Gold M et al. The Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): utility in detection and characterization of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer‘s dis­ease. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2013; 28(8): 837– 844. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ act057.

22. Krámská L, Preiss M. Opakovatelná baterie pro vyšetření neuropsychologického stavu –  RBANS: český překlad a úprava [nepublikovaný rukopis]. Pearson. 2010.

23. Stern RA, White T. Neuropsychological As­ses­sment Battery: psychometric and technical manual. Lutz: Psychological As­ses­sment Resources 2003.

24. Can­nizzaro D, El­liott J, Stohl M et al. Neuropsycho­logical As­ses­sment Battery-Screen­­ing Module (S-NAB): performance in treatment-seek­­ing cocaine users. Am JDrug Alcohol Abuse 2014; 40(6): 476– 483. doi: 10.3109/ 00952990.2014.916718.

25. Temple RO, Zgaljardic DJ, Abreu BC et al. Ecological validity of the neuropsychological as­ses­sment battery screen­­ing module in post-acute brain injury rehabilitation. Brain Inj 2009; 23(1): 45– 50. doi: 10.1080/ 02699050802590361.

26. Zgaljardic DJ, Temple RO. Reliability and validity of the Neuropsychological As­ses­sment Battery-Screen­­ing Module (NAB-SM) in a sample of patients with moderate-to-severe acquired brain injury. Appl Neuropsychol 2010; 17(1): 27– 36. doi: 10.1080/ 09084280903297909.

27. Daniels B. The Neuropsychological As­ses­sment Battery (NAB): a test of criterion validity within an epilepsy population. Dis­s. Gainesvil­le: University of Florida 2011.

28. Jurica SJ, Leitten CL, Mattis S. Dementia Rat­­ing Scale: Profes­sional manual. Odes­sa: Psychological As­ses­sment Resources 2001.

29. Bezdicek O, Michalec J, Nikolai T et al. Clinical validity of the Mattis Dementia Rat­­ing Scale in dif­ferentiat­­ing mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson‘s dis­ease and normative data. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2015; 39(5– 6): 303– 311. doi: 10.1159/ 000375365.

30. Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL. A new rat­­ing scale for Alzheimer’s dis­ease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141(11): 1356– 1364. doi: 10.1176/ ajp.141.11.1356.

31. Cano SJ, Posner HB, Moline ML et al. The ADAS-cogin Alzheimer’s dis­ease clinical trials: psychometric evaluation of the sum and its parts. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010; 81(12): 1363– 1368. doi: 10.1136/ jn­np.2009.204008.

32. Yavorsky C, DiClemente G, Opler M et al. Establish­­ing threshold scores and profiles of cognitive impairment for the Alzheimer’s Dis­ease As­ses­sment Scale Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) for patients with higher dementia (MMSE<12), Alzheimer’s dis­ease and probable MCI. Alzheimers Dement 2012; 8 (4 Suppl): P415– P416. doi: 10.1016/ j.jalz.2012.05.2053.

33. Zec RF, Landreth ES, Vicari SK et al. Alzheimer dis­ease as­ses­sment scale: useful for both early detection and stag­­ing of dementia of the Alzheimer type. Alzheimer Dis As­soc Disord 1992; 6(2): 89– 102. doi: 10.1097/ 00002093-199206020-00004.

34. Nuechterlein KH, Green MF, Kern RS et al. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 1: test selection, reliability, and validity. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 203– 213. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010042.

35. Bezdíček O, Nikolai T, Michalec J et al. Komplexní posouzení kognitivních funkcí u nemocných schizofrenií –  česká verze standardizovaného nástroje MATRICS. Ceska Slov Psychiat 2015; 111(2): 79– 86.

36. Wilde M. The validity of the Repeatable Battery for the As­ses­sment of Neuropsychological Status in acute stroke. Clin Neuropsychol 2006; 20(4): 702– 715. doi: 10.1080/ 13854040500246901.

37. Bolceková E. Profily kognitivního deficitu a použití krátké neuropsychologické baterie u různých typů demence [dizertační práce]. Praha 2016. Dostupné z URL: http: / / 20.500.11956/ 81625.

38. Brodská V. Ověření psychometrických charakteristik české verze RBANS [rigorózní práce]. Praha 2016. Dostupné z URL: http: / / 20.500.11956/ 84623.

39. Mattis S. Dementia Rat­­ing Scale: Profes­sional manual. Odes­sa: Psychological As­ses­sment Resources 1988.

40. Podhorna J, Krahnke T, Shear M et al. Alzheimer’s Dis­ease As­ses­sment Scale–  cognitive subscale variants in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dis­ease: change over time and the ef­fect of enrichment strategies. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8(1): 8. doi: 10.1186/ s13195-016-0170-5.

41. Mohs RC, Knopman D, Petersen RC et al. Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Dis­ease As­ses­sment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Dis­ease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis As­soc Disord 1997; 11 (Suppl 2): S13– S21. doi: 10.1097/ 00002093-199700112-00003.

42. Lowe AD, Balsis S, Benge JF et al. Add­­ing delayed recall to the ADAS-cog improves measurement precision in mild Alzheimer’s dis­ease: implications for predict­­ing instrumental activities of daily living. Psychol As­ses­s 2015; 27(4): 1234– 1240. doi: 10.1037/ pas0000133.

43. Standish TI, Mol­loy DW, Bédard M et al. Improvedreliability of the Standardized Alzheimer‘s Dis­easeAs­ses­sment Scale (SADAS) compared with the Alzheimer‘s Dis­ease As­ses­sment Scale (ADAS). J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44(6): 712– 716. doi: 10.1111/ j.15325415.1996.tb01838.x.

44. Talwalker S, Over­all JE, Srirama MK et al. Cardinal features of cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer‘s dis­ease: a factor-analytic study of the Alzheimer‘s Dis­ease As­ses­sment Scale. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1996; 9(1): 39– 46. doi: 10.1177/ 089198879600900107.

45. Kern RS, Nuechterlein KH, Green MF et al. The MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery, part 2: co-norm­­ing and standardization. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 214– 220. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010043.

46. Green MF, Nuechterlein KH, Kern RS et al. Functional co-primary measures for clinical trials in schizophrenia: results from the MATRICS Psychometric and Standardization Study. Am J Psychiat 2008; 165(2): 221– 228. doi: 10.1176/ appi.ajp.2007.07010089.

47. Preiss J, Preiss M. As­ses­s­­ing neuropsychological impairment us­­ing Reitan and Wolfson’s Screen­­ing Bat­tery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2013; 28(5): 492– 498. doi: 10.1093/ arclin/ act027.

48. Kulišťák P. Cognistat –  záznamový arch a příručka. Praha: Katedra neurologie IPVZ 1996.

49. Keefe RS, Goldberg TE, Harvey PD et al. The Brief As­ses­sment of Cognition in Schizophrenia: reliability, sensitivity, and comparison with a standard neurocognitive battery. Schizophr Res 2004; 68(2– 3): 283– 297. doi: 10.1016/ j.schres.2003.09.011.

50. Rao SM, the Cognitive Function Study Group of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. A manual for the Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Tests in multiple sclerosis. Milwaukee: Medical Col­lege of Wisconsin 1990.

51. Purdon SE. The Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP): Instructions and three alternate forms. Edmonton: PNL Inc. 2005.

52. Rojo E, Pino O, Guilera G et al. Neurocognitive dia­gnosis and cut-off scores of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-S). Schizophr Res 2010; 116(2– 3): 243– 251. doi: 0.1016/ j.schres.2009.08.005.

53. Gómez-Benito J, Guilera G, Pino O et al. Compar­­ing neurocognitive impairment in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder us­­ing the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry Scale. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2014; 14(2): 128−136. doi: 10.1016/ s1697-2600(14)70046-8.

54. Tourjman SV, Beauchamp MH, Djouini A et al. French validation of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-F). Open J Psychiatr 2016; 6(1): 107– 118. doi: 10.4236/ ojpsych.2016.61013.

55. Hirabayashi E, Purdon SE, Masuya J et al. The Japanese version of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry: a preliminary study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2006; 21(4): A10.

56. Ott CV, Bjertrup AJ, Jensen JH et al. Screen­­ing for cognitive dysfunction in unipolar depres­sion: validation and evaluation of objective and subjective tools. J Af­fect Disord 2016; 190: 607– 615. doi: 10.1016/ j.jad.2015.10.059.

57. Czekaj A, Uhlmann C, Flam­mer E et al. Klinische Praktikabilität der „Erfas­sung kognitiver Beeinträchtigung“ bei Patienten der Al­lgemeinpsychiatrie (Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry/ SCIP). In: Forschung und Lehre Jahresbericht. Bad Schus­senried: Deutsche Gesel­lschaft für Psychiatrie 2012.

58. Preiss M, Bartoš A, Čermáková R et al. Neuropsychologická baterie Psychiatrického centra Praha: Klinické vyšetření základních kognitivních funkcí. 3. vyd. Praha: Psychiatrické centrum Praha 2012.

59. Štěpánková H, Nikolai T, Lukavský J et al. Mini-Mental State Examination –  česká normativní studie. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/ 111(1): 57– 63.

Paediatric neurology Neurosurgery Neurology

Article was published in

Czech and Slovak Neurology and Neurosurgery

Issue 1

2018 Issue 1

Most read in this issue
Forgotten password

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.


Don‘t have an account?  Create new account