Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 17, 2025

Use of a Video Scoring Anchor for Rapid Serial Assessment of Social Communication in Toddlers
Published on: March 14, 2018
[Discriminant validity and inter-rater concordance of two scoring systems for the clock test]
Teodoro Del Ser1, Belén Frades1, Meritxell Valentí-Soler1
1Unidad de Investigación Enfermedad de Alzheimer, Fundación CIEN. Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, España.
Objective:
To compare the discriminant validity and inter-rater reliability of the two scoring systems for the Clock test that are most used in Spain.
Methodology:
Two collections of clock drawings obtained in a clinical context (116 cases; 56.8% women, mean age 73.1±7.7 years) and in a cohort of volunteers (2039 drawings of 579 subjects; 59.5% women, mean age 78.3±3.8 years) have been assessed. All subjects were classified as cognitively normal (CN) or cognitively impaired (CI) after extensive clinical and neuropsychological evaluation. Expert raters have evaluated these drawings independently and without knowledge of the diagnosis using the Sunderland and Solomon systems standardized in Spanish by Cacho (range 0 to 10) and del Ser (range 0 to 7) respectively. The discriminant validity of each method was calculated in the two samples using the area under the ROC curve (aROC), and the inter-rater reliability was calculated in the clinical sample, that was assessed by the two evaluators, using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the kappa coefficient.
Results:
There are no significant differences in the discriminant validity of the Sunderland and Solomon systems in any of the samples (clinical: aROC 0.73 [CI95%: 0.64-0.81] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.69-0.85] respectively, P=.19; volunteers: aROC 0.69 [CI95%: 0.67-0.71] and 0.72 [CI95%: 0.69-0.73] respectively, P=.08). The cut-off points ≤8 and ≤5 correctly classify 71% and 73% of the clinical sample and 82% and 84% of the volunteer sample, respectively. Both systems have good agreement in the clinical sample (Sunderland: ICC 0.90 [CI95%: 0.81-0.93], kappa 0.76 [CI95%: 0.70-0.83]; Solomon: 0.92 [CI95%: 0.88-0.95] and 0.77 [CI95%: 0.71-0.83] respectively), somewhat higher in the second, although the differences are not significant.
Conclusions:
The discriminant validity and inter-observer reliability of these two Clock Test correction systems are similar. Solomon's method, shorter and simpler, may be more advisable in pragmatic terms.
More Related Videos
08:40Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
Published on: June 12, 2019
10:58Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics BM-PROMA
Published on: August 28, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance
Reliability and Validity
Receiver Operating Characteristic Plot