Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Oct 13.
Published in final edited form as: J Aging Health. 2015 Mar 24;27(7):1199–1222. doi: 10.1177/0898264315577590

Table 5.

Differentiating Between Normal and MDITB Participants.

Composite subtest Composite domains Learning and retention
AUC 0.90 [0.88, 0.92]a,b 0.86 [0.83, 0.88]b 0.79 [0.76, 0.82]
Cutoff 0.03 0.13 0.16
Sensitivity 0.78 [0.74, 0.82]b 0.75 [0.71, 0.79] 0.69 [0.64, 0.74]
Specificity 0.85 [0.82, 0.88]b 0.79 [0.76, 0.83] 0.74 [0.71, 0.78]
PPV 0.79 [0.74, 0.83]b 0.72 [0.68, 0.76] 0.66 [0.61, 0.70]
NPV 0.85 [0.82, 0.88]b 0.82 [0.78, 0.85] 0.77 [0.74, 0.81]
Test accuracy 0.82 [0.80, 0.85]a,b 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]b 0.72 [0.69, 0.75]

Note. MDITB = test-based multidomain impairment; AUC = area under the curve; PPV = positive predictive value; NPV = negative predictive value.

a

Significant difference compared with composite domains summary score.

b

Significant difference compared with learning and retention summary score.