Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries
Buckley RF, Sparks KP, Papp KV, Dekhtyar M, Martin C, Burnham S, Sperling RA, Rentz DM.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2017-01-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background As prevention trials for Alzheimer's disease move into asymptomatic populations, identifying older individuals who manifest the earliest cognitive signs of Alzheimer's disease is critical. Computerized cognitive testing has the potential to replace current gold standard paper and pencil measures and may be a more efficient means of assessing cognition. However, more empirical evidence about the comparability of novel computerized batteries to paper and pencil measures is required. Objectives To determine whether two computerized IPad batteries, the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery and Cogstate-C3, similarly predict subtle cognitive impairment identified using the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC). Design, setting, participants A pilot sample of 50 clinically normal older adults (Mage=68.5 years±7.6, 45% non-Caucasian) completed the PACC assessment, and the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate-C3 at research centers of Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospitals. Participants made 3-4 in-clinic visits, receiving the PACC first, then the NIH Toolbox, and finally the Cogstate-C3.>= 0.5SD), versus subtle cognitive impairment (<0.5SD). Composites for each computerized battery were created using principle components analysis, and compared with the PACC using non-parametric Spearman correlations. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine which composite was best able to classify subtle cognitive impairment from typical performance. Results The NIH Toolbox formed one composite and exhibited the strongest within-battery alignment, while the Cogstate-C3 formed two distinct composites (Learning-Memory and Processing Speed-Attention). The NIH Toolbox and C3 Learning-Memory composites exhibited positive correlations with the PACC (ρ=0.49, p<0.001; ρ=0.58, p<0.001, respectively), but not the C3 Processing Speed-Attention composite, ρ=-0.18, p=0.22. The C3 Learning-Memory was the only composite that classified subtle cognitive impairment, and demonstrated the greatest sensitivity (62%) and specificity (81%) for that subtle cognitive impairment. Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks. By contrast, Learning-Memory tasks within the Cogstate-C3 battery have the greatest potential to identify cross-sectional, subtle cognitive impairment as defined by the PACC.
Key findings
- Participants made 3-4 in-clinic visits, receiving the PACC first, then the NIH Toolbox, and finally the Cogstate-C3.>= 0.5SD), versus subtle cognitive impairment (<0.5SD).
- Composites for each computerized battery were created using principle components analysis, and compared with the PACC using non-parametric Spearman correlations.
- Results The NIH Toolbox formed one composite and exhibited the strongest within-battery alignment, while the Cogstate-C3 formed two distinct composites (Learning-Memory and Processing Speed-Attention).
- The C3 Learning-Memory was the only composite that classified subtle cognitive impairment, and demonstrated the greatest sensitivity (62%) and specificity (81%) for that subtle cognitive impairment.
- Conclusions Preliminary findings suggest that the NIH Toolbox has the advantage of showing the strongest overall clustering and alignment with standardized paper-and-pencil tasks.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 29188853) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 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.
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 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.
APA 7th
Buckley, R. F., Sparks, K. P., Papp, K. V., Dekhtyar, M., Martin, C., Burnham, S., et al. (2017). Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2017.1
Vancouver
Buckley RF, Sparks KP, Papp KV, Dekhtyar M, Martin C, Burnham S, et al. Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2017. doi:10.14283/jpad.2017.1. PMID: 29188853.
BibTeX
@article{buckley2017-29188853,
author = {Buckley, R. F. and Sparks, K. P. and Papp, K. V. and Dekhtyar, M. and Martin, C. and Burnham, S. and Sperling, R. A. and Rentz, D. M.},
title = {{Computerized Cognitive Testing for Use in Clinical Trials: A Comparison of the NIH Toolbox and Cogstate C3 Batteries}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2017.1},
pmid = {29188853},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2017.1}
}