The Italian version of Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) for tracking changes in healthy elderly: results at 1-year follow-up
Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) is a questionnaire aimed at detecting very early changes in cognitive and functional abilities and useful for monitoring cognitive decline in individuals without clinical impairment. The Italian version has been recently validated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the utility of the Italian version of CFI in tracking early cognitive changes in a cohort of healthy elderly subjects. A consecutive series of 257 cognitively healthy and functionally independent subjects, recruited either among relatives of patients attending our Memory Clinic or as volunteers after advertisement, underwent a baseline neuropsychological assessment. Of them, 157 subjects performed a 1-year follow-up assessment. All subjects completed the CFI, a short questionnaire composed of 14 items administered to both the subject and the referent (study-partner). Cognitive performance was assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). At 1-year follow-up, Cronbach’s α was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74–0.84) in self-report and 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79–0.87) for partner-report. CFI self-report correlated with MMSE (rS = − 0.22, p = 0.006) and RBANS (rS = − 0.23, p = 0.004). CFI partner-report showed negative correlation with MMSE (rS = − 0.17, p = 0.037) and RBANS (rS = − 0.20, p = 0.014). CFI 1-year follow-up score correlated with baseline both in self-report (rS = 0.56, p < 0.001) and partner-report (rS = 0.66, p < 0.001). Baseline CFI partner-report (p = 0.014) and CFI self+partner report (p = 0.023) were associated with RBANS total score less than 85 at 1-year follow-up, while only a trend was found considering baseline CFI self-report. Our results support the suitability of the Italian version of CFI for tracking cognitive changes along aging.
KeywordsAlzheimer’s disease Cognitive Function Instrument Subjective cognitive decline Italian version Questionnaire
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (CEAS Umbria), and all participants signed the informed consent.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Sperling RA, Aisen PS, Beckett LA, Bennett DA, Craft S, Fagan AM, Iwatsubo T, Jack CR Jr, Kaye J, Montine TJ, Park DC, Reiman EM, Rowe CC, Siemers E, Stern Y, Yaffe K, Carrillo MC, Thies B, Morrison-Bogorad M, Wagster MV, Phelps CH (2011) Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement 7(3):280–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Dubois B, Hampel H, Feldman HH, Scheltens P, Aisen P, Andrieu S, Bakardjian H, Benali H, Bertram L, Blennow K, Broich K, Cavedo E, Crutch S, Dartigues JF, Duyckaerts C, Epelbaum S, Frisoni GB, Gauthier S, Genthon R, Gouw AA, Habert MO, Holtzman DM, Kivipelto M, Lista S, Molinuevo JL, O’Bryant SE, Rabinovici GD, Rowe C, Salloway S, Schneider LS, Sperling R, Teichmann M, Carrillo MC, Cummings J, Jack CR Jr (2016) Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: definition, natural history, and diagnostic criteria. Alzheimer’s Dementia. 12(3):292–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Buckley RF, Maruff P, Ames D, Bourgeat P, Martins RN, Masters CL, Rainey-Smith S, Lautenschlager N, Rowe CC, Savage G, Villemagne VL, Ellis KA, AIBL study (2016) Subjective memory decline predicts greater rates of clinical progression in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement Elsevier Inc 12(7):796–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ponteri M, Pioli R, Padovani A, Tunesi SDGG (2007) RBANS repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status. GiuntiGoogle Scholar
- 17.Duff K, Humphreys Clark JD, O’Bryant SE, Mold JW, Schiffer RB, Sutker PB (2008) Utility of the RBANS in detecting cognitive impairment associated with Alzheimer’s disease: sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive powers. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 23(5):603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Faison WE, Schultz SK, Aerssens J, Alvidrez J, Anand R, Farrer LA, Jarvik L, Manly J, McRae T, Murphy GM, Olin JT, Regier D, Sano M, Mintzer JE (2007) Potential ethnic modifiers in the assessment and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: challenges for the future. Int Psychogeriatr 19(3):539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar