Home › Research › Getting a diagnosis
Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda
Valdespino, R.; Hromas, G.; Wang, C.-P.; Paul, R.; Nakasujja, N.; Reynolds, Z.; Atwiine, F.; Tindimwebwa et al.. medRxiv (preprint), 2026-09-23
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
For TabCAT tests, there were no notable floor or ceiling effects, and test scores were associated with age and education as expected. DiscussionTabCAT tests demonstrated face, content, construct, concurrent, and criterion validity for measuring cognition and detecting objective cognitive impairment among older adults in Uganda, including PLWH. These results support the potential of tablet-based brief cognitive assessment tools to measure cognitive performance and detect cognitive impairment in Uganda, including among older PLWH, and in populations with lower levels of education and literacy.
Key findings
- For TabCAT tests, there were no notable floor or ceiling effects, and test scores were associated with age and education as expected.
- DiscussionTabCAT tests demonstrated face, content, construct, concurrent, and criterion validity for measuring cognition and detecting objective cognitive impairment among older adults in Uganda, including PLWH.
- These results support the potential of tablet-based brief cognitive assessment tools to measure cognitive performance and detect cognitive impairment in Uganda, including among older PLWH, and in populations with lower levels of education and literacy.
Why it matters
This study found that tablet-based cognitive tests worked well for measuring thinking skills and detecting cognitive impairment in older adults in Uganda, including people with lower education and literacy. These tools could help identify cognitive problems in places where standard testing is difficult, but the study only tested the assessment tool itself, not any treatment or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Getting a diagnosis →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants563
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 39 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on impact for its field and year and senior author's track record, so those were left out: it earned 35 of the 90 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (medRxiv (preprint)) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 563 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 | 0 / 7 | Cited 0 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 0 / 5 | 0.0 citations a year over 2 year(s) since 2026 |
| 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 | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author Jeremy A. Tanner holds only 6 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 3 / 3 | Harvard University: institution h-index 3,235 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 3 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 14 institution(s) in 4 countries |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 35 / 90 | Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 35 of the 90 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Valdespino, R., Hromas, G., Wang, C.-P., Paul, R., Nakasujja, N., Reynolds, Z., et al. (2026). Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda. medRxiv (preprint). https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.21.26363152
Vancouver
Valdespino R, Hromas G, Wang C.-P, Paul R, Nakasujja N, Reynolds Z, et al. Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda. medRxiv (preprint). 2026. doi:10.64898/2026.09.21.26363152.
BibTeX
@article{valdespino2026-1b7a53cd,
author = {Valdespino, R. and Hromas, G. and Wang, C.-P. and Paul, R. and Nakasujja, N. and Reynolds, Z. and Atwiine, F. and Tindimwebwa and others},
title = {{Adaptation and Validation of Brief Tablet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool in Uganda}},
journal = {medRxiv (preprint)},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.21.26363152},
url = {https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.09.21.26363152}
}
Related studies in Getting a diagnosis
Also in Getting a diagnosis
141 studies in the library are filed under Getting a diagnosis with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Getting a diagnosis hub.