Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Cognitive deficits are present in several neuropsychiatric disorders, including Alzheimer disease, schizophrenia, and depression. Assessments used to measure cognition in these disorders are time-consuming, burdensome, and have low ecological validity. To address these limitations, we developed a novel virtual reality shopping task-VStore. Objective This study aims to establish the construct validity of VStore in relation to the established computerized cognitive battery, Cogstate, and explore its sensitivity to age-related cognitive decline. Methods A total of 142 healthy volunteers aged 20-79 years participated in the study. The main VStore outcomes included verbal recall of 12 grocery items, time to collect items, time to select items on a self-checkout machine, time to make the payment, time to order coffee, and total completion time. Construct validity was examined through a series of backward elimination regression models to establish which Cogstate tasks, measuring attention, processing speed, verbal and visual learning, working memory, executive function, and paired associate learning, in addition to age and technological familiarity, best predicted VStore performance. In addition, 2 ridge regression and 2 logistic regression models supplemented with receiver operating characteristic curves were built, with VStore outcomes in the first model and Cogstate outcomes in the second model entered as predictors of age and age cohorts, respectively. Results Overall VStore performance, as indexed by the total time spent completing the task, was best explained by Cogstate tasks measuring attention, working memory, paired associate learning, and age and technological familiarity, accounting for 47% of the variance. In addition, with λ=5.16, the ridge regression model selected 5 parameters for VStore when predicting age (mean squared error 185.80, SE 19.34), and with λ=9.49 for Cogstate, the model selected all 8 tasks (mean squared error 226.80, SE 23.48). Finally, VStore was found to be highly sensitive (87%) and specific (91.7%) to age cohorts, with 94.6% of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Conclusions Our findings suggest that VStore is a promising assessment that engages standard cognitive domains and is sensitive to age-related cognitive decline.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Porffy, L. A., Mehta, M. A., Patchitt, J., Boussebaa, C., Brett, J., D'Oliveira, T., et al. (2022). A Novel Virtual Reality Assessment of Functional Cognition: Validation Study. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/27641

Vancouver

Porffy LA, Mehta MA, Patchitt J, Boussebaa C, Brett J, D'Oliveira T, et al. A Novel Virtual Reality Assessment of Functional Cognition: Validation Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2022. doi:10.2196/27641. PMID: 35080501.

BibTeX

@article{porffy2022-35080501,
  author  = {Porffy, L. A. and Mehta, M. A. and Patchitt, J. and Boussebaa, C. and Brett, J. and D'Oliveira, T. and Mouchlianitis, E. and Shergill, S. S.},
  title   = {{A Novel Virtual Reality Assessment of Functional Cognition: Validation Study}},
  journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.2196/27641},
  pmid    = {35080501},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2196/27641}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 55/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 32 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 55 of 100. Total 55 of 100.32 of the 58 points we could judge = 55 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical Internet research)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 142 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35080501)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 32 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100.
Total 55 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also tagged “validation”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “validation”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →