Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

INTRODUCTION: Two parallel versions (A and B) of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) were developed in the United Kingdom (UK) as a stroke-specific screen of five key cognitive domains commonly affected post-stroke. We aimed to develop the Australian versions A and B (OCS-AU), including Australian cut-scores indicative of impairment. We hypothesised there to be no difference in performance between the UK and Australian normative data cohorts. METHODS: Our multidisciplinary expert panel used the UK pre-defined process to develop the OCS-AU versions A and B. We then conducted a cross-sectional normative study. We purposively recruited community-dwelling, Australian-born, and educated adults; with no known cognitive impairment; representative of age, sex, education level, and living location; at seven sites (four metropolitan, three regional) across four Australian states. Participants completed one or both OCS-AU versions in a randomised order. Australian cohorts were compared with the corresponding UK cohorts for demographics using Pearson's chi-squared test for sex and education, and Welch two-sample t test for age. For the cut-scores indicating cognitive impairment, the fifth (95th) percentiles and group mean performance score for each scored item were compared using Welch two-sample t tests. The pre-defined criteria for retaining OCS cut-scores had no statistically significant difference in either percentile or group mean scores for each scored item. RESULTS: Participants (n = 83) were recruited: fifty-eight completed version A [age (years) mean = 61,SD = 15; 62% female], 60 completed version B [age (years) mean = 62,SD = 13, 53% female], and 35 completed both [age (years) mean = 64,SD = 11, 54% female]. Education was different between the cohorts for version B (12 years, p = 0.002). Cut-scores for all 16 scored items for the OCS-AU version B and 15/16 for version A met our pre-defined criteria for retaining the OCS cut scores. CONCLUSIONS: The OCS-AU provides clinicians with an Australian-specific, first-line cognitive screening tool for people after stroke. Early screening can guide treatment and management.

Original publication




Journal article


Aust Occup Ther J

Publication Date



Australia, Stroke, cognition, diagnosis, screening