Intelligence, cognition, and major neurocognitive disorders: From constructs to measures

Abstract

The study of intelligence's role in development of major neurocognitive disorders (MND) is influenced by the approaches used to conceptualize and measure these constructs. In the field of cognitive impairment, the use of single ‘intelligence’ tests is a common approach to estimate intelligence. Despite being a practical compromise between feasibility and constructs, variance of these tests is only partially explained by general intelligence, and some tools (e.g., lexical tasks for premorbid intelligence) presented inherent limitations. Alternatively, factorial models allow an actual measure of intelligence as a latent factor superintending all mental abilities. Royall and colleagues used structural equation modeling to decompose the Spearman's general intelligence factor g in δ (shared variance across cognitive and functional measures) and g’ (shared variance across cognitive measures only). Authors defined δ as the ‘cognitive correlates of functional status’, and thus a ‘phenotype for all cause dementia’. Compared to g’, δ explained a little rate of cognitive measures’ variance, but it demonstrated a higher accuracy in dementia case-finding. From the methodological perspective, given g ‘indifference’ to its indicators, further studies are needed to identify the minimal set of tools necessary to extract g, and to test also non-cognitive variables as measures of δ. From the clinical perspective, general intelligence seems to influence MND presence and severity more than domain specific cognitive abilities. Giving δ ‘blindness’ to etiology, its association with biomarkers and contribution to differential diagnosis might be limited. Classical neuropsychological approaches based on patterns of performances at cognitive tests remained fundamental for differential diagnosis.