Table 2.

Neuropsychological assessment and MCI diagnostic methods in Latinx individuals

Cohort	Study	Method for selection of language of assessment	Translation/adaptation	MCI diagnosis method	Normative data source	Normative data included Hispanics
1Florida ADRC	Duara et al. 2019	Patient preference	Cited published Spanish translations	Consensus with NACC D1 classification protocol	Cited normative data for Spanish translations	Yes
Florida ADRC, Miami Beach	Rosselli et al., 2019	Patient preference	NR	Clinician diagnosis. Impaired scores ≥ 1.5 SD below normal	NR	Assumed yes; reported that norms were corrected by age, education, and language
FRONTIER	Johnson et al., 2013	NR	NR	Clinical consensus	NR	No
	Johnson et al., 2014	NR	NR	Clinical consensus assumed but not specified in this paper. MCI generally considered when test scores were ≥ 1.5 SD below the mean.	Publisher's norms NHW; unpublished local norms for English- and Spanish-speaking Hispanics	Yes
FRONTIER, HABLE, TARCC	Johnson et al., 2015	NR	NR	Clinical consensus	NR	NR
FRONTIER, TARCC	O’Bryant, Johnson, Reisch, et al., 2013	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus	(Ivnik et al., 1992)	No
FRONTIER, TARCC	O’Bryant, Johnson, Balldin, et al., 2013	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus	Ivnik et al. (1992)	No
HABLE	Johnson et al., 2016	NR	NR	Clinical consensus. MCI generally considered when test scores were ≥ 1.5 SD below the mean.	NR	NR
	Johnson et al., 2017	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus	Unpublished local norms for English and Spanish-speaking Hispanics	Yes
	Johnson et al., 2019	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus. Impairment considered if test was ≥ 1.5 SD below age- and education-adjusted norms.	(O’Bryant et al., 2018)	Yes
	Szerlip et al., 2015	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus. Impairment considered if test was ≥ 1.5 SD below age- and education-adjusted norms.	Unpublished local norms for English and Spanish-speaking Hispanics	Yes
NACC	Mcclendon et al., 2009	NR	NR	Clinician diagnosis	NR	NR
	Milani et al., 2018	NR	NR	Clinician diagnosis	NR	NR
	Pandya et al., 2017	NR	NR	Clinician diagnosis	(Shirk et al., 2011)	No (4.2% Hispanic in normative sample)
NYU ADC	Guerrero-Berroa et al., 2014	Patient preference	NR	Clinical consensus	Unclear; referenced (De Santi et al., 2008)(89% White, ethnicity NR); also referenced normative data for Wechsler for Spanish speakers	Y, reported as available for WAIS only (EIWA-III, Spain); referenced US validation study
Predictors 3	Stern et al., 2017	Patient opinion of best performance	Translated and back-translated by a committee of Spanish speakers from Cuba, Puerto Rico, Spain, and the Dominican Republic.	Clinical consensus	Source NR; describes age-, education-, ethnicity, and sex-corrected scores from WHICAP (Manly et al. (2005) assumed).	Yes
SPS3	Dhamoon et al. 2015	NR	NR	Algorithm; Impairment z ≤ −1·5 in at least 1 test domain; per Jacova et al. (2012)	Unclear; references methods from Jacova et al. (2012); (Englishspeaking sample)	No (if consistent with Jacova et al. (2012)
	Jacova et al., 2015	NR	Reported published and validated Spanish test versions with references.	Algorithm: Impairment on each test identified with z-score ≤ −1·5. Tests grouped into domains using PCA. MCI designation if impairment in ≥1 domain.	Yes; varied	Yes, for most tests
	Pearce et al., 2014	NR	NR	Algorithm: impairment defined as score of ≥1.5 SD below the mean.	Cited Jacova et al. (2012)	No, if consistent with Jacova et al. (2012)
SPRINT	Williamson et al., 2019	NR	Reported that validated Spanish translations were used when available; otherwise translated and back-translated	Expert adjudication panel	NR	NR
TARCC	Bryant et al., 2013	NR	NR	Clinical consensus	Ivnik et al. (1992)	No (0.2% Hispanic in normative sample)
	Royall & Palmer, 2013	NR	NR	NR in this paper (clinical consensus reported in other TARCC papers)	NR	NR
	Royall et al., 2014	NR	NR	NR in this paper (clinical consensus reported in other TARCC papers)	NR	NR
	Royall & Palmer, 2016	NR	NR	NR in this paper (clinical consensus reported in other TARCC papers)	NR	NR
	Royall & Palmer, 2017	NR	NR	Clinical consensus	NR; notes that norms for MA are not available for many tests	NR
	Salazar et al., 2014	Patient opinion of best performance	NR	Clinical consensus	NR	NR
	Salazar et al., 2016	Patient opinion of best performance	NR	Clinical consensus	Ivnik et al. (1992)	No (0.2% Hispanic in normative sample)
UC Davis ADC	DeCarli et al., 2008	NR	NR	Clinical consensus. Must perform <10th percentile (age and education adjusted) in at least 1 cognitive domain.	NR	NR
	Early et al., 2013	Patient opinion of best performance	NR	Clinical consensus. Must perform <10th percentile (age and education adjusted) in at least 1 cognitive domain.	NR	NR
	Farias et al., 2005	Patient preference if bilingual	Psychometric ally matched with IRT (SENAS)	Clinical consensus; test score < 10th percentile (demographically adjusted)	(Mungas et al., 2004)	Yes
	Farias et al., 2009	NR	NR	Clinical consensus. impairment considered as approximately 1.5 SD below age- corrected norms; considering education and occupational background.	NR	NR
	Hinton et al., 2010	NR	NR	Clinical consensus	NR	NR
	Miller et al., 2015	NR	NR	“Standard criteria”	NR, but (Weintraub et al., 2009) referenced (non-Hispanic norms).	NR
WHICAP	Blum et al., 2012	Patient’s opinion of best performance (per Stern et al., 1992)	Translated & back-translated	NR; Manly et al. (2005) assumed	NR	NR
	Devanand et al., 2010	Patient’s opinion of best performance (per Manly et al., 2005)	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Gu et al., 2015	Patient’s opinion of best performance (per Manly et al., 2005)	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	yes
	Luchsinger et al., 2007	Patient’s opinion of best performance (per Manly et al., 2005)	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Manly et al., 2005	Patient’s opinion of best performance	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Local, robust norms, based on age, education, sex, and ethnicity	Yes
	Manly et al., 2008	Patient’s opinion of best performance	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Manly et al., 2011	Patient’s opinion of best performance	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Rizvi et al., 2018	Patient preference	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Scarmeas et al., 2009	NR	Translated & back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment)	Manly et al. (2005)	Yes
	Zahodne et al., 2013	NR	Translated and back-translated	Clinical consensus*; 1.5 SD normative cut-off for impairment	Manly et al., (2005)	Yes
Women's Health Initiative- Memory Study	Goveas et al., 2016	NR	NR	Neurologist diagnosis	NR	NR

Note: ADC = Alzheimer’s Disease Center. ADRC = Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. AMNART = American National Adult Reading Test. FRONTIER = Facing Rural Obstacles to Healthcare Now Through Intervention, Education & Research. HABLE =Health & Aging Brain among Latino Elders. NA = not applicable. NACC = National Alzheimer’s Disease Coordinating Center. NR = Not reported. NYU ADC = New York University Alzheimer’s Disease Center. SENAS = Spanish and English Neuropsychological Assessment Scales. SPS3 = The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes study. TARCC = Texas Alzheimer’s Research and Care Consortium. WAT = Word Accentuation Test. WHICAP = Washington Heights-Inwood Columbia Aging Project (WHICAP). WRAT = Wide Range Achievement Test.

¹Cited previous paper describing cohort as Mexican American.

²Cited previous paper describing cohort as Caribbean Hispanic.

^*Diagnosis of dementia was ruled out through consensus conference

MCI classification was then performed through algorithm