Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Feasibility and acceptability of remote smartphone cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia research
Taylor JC, Heuer HW, Clark AL, Wise AB, Manoochehri M, Forsberg L, Mester C, Rao M et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2023-04-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Introduction Remote smartphone assessments of cognition, speech/language, and motor functioning in frontotemporal dementia (FTD) could enable decentralized clinical trials and improve access to research. We studied the feasibility and acceptability of remote smartphone data collection in FTD research using the ALLFTD Mobile App (ALLFTD-mApp). Methods A diagnostically mixed sample of 214 participants with FTD or from familial FTD kindreds (asymptomatic: CDR®+NACC-FTLD = 0 [ N = 101]; prodromal: 0.5 [ N = 49]; symptomatic ≥1 [ N = 51]; not measured [ N = 13]) were asked to complete ALLFTD-mApp tests on their smartphone three times within 12 days. They completed smartphone familiarity and participation experience surveys. Results It was feasible for participants to complete the ALLFTD-mApp on their own smartphones. Participants reported high smartphone familiarity, completed ∼ 70% of tasks, and considered the time commitment acceptable (98% of respondents). Greater disease severity was associated with poorer performance across several tests. Discussion These findings suggest that the ALLFTD-mApp study protocol is feasible and acceptable for remote FTD research. Highlights The ALLFTD Mobile App is a smartphone-based platform for remote, self-administered data collection.The ALLFTD Mobile App consists of a comprehensive battery of surveys and tests of executive functioning, memory, speech and language, and motor abilities.Remote digital data collection using the ALLFTD Mobile App was feasible in a multicenter research consortium that studies FTD. Data was collected in healthy controls and participants with a range of diagnoses, particularly FTD spectrum disorders.Remote digital data collection was well accepted by participants with a variety of diagnoses.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Taylor, J. C., Heuer, H. W., Clark, A. L., Wise, A. B., Manoochehri, M., Forsberg, L., et al. (2023). Feasibility and acceptability of remote smartphone cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia research. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12423
Vancouver
Taylor JC, Heuer HW, Clark AL, Wise AB, Manoochehri M, Forsberg L, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of remote smartphone cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia research. Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2023. doi:10.1002/dad2.12423. PMID: 37180971.
BibTeX
@article{taylor2023-37180971,
author = {Taylor, J. C. and Heuer, H. W. and Clark, A. L. and Wise, A. B. and Manoochehri, M. and Forsberg, L. and Mester, C. and Rao, M. and others},
title = {{Feasibility and acceptability of remote smartphone cognitive testing in frontotemporal dementia research}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/dad2.12423},
pmid = {37180971},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/dad2.12423}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results It was feasible for participants to complete the ALLFTD-mApp on their own smartphones.
- Greater disease severity was associated with poorer performance across several tests.
- Discussion These findings suggest that the ALLFTD-mApp study protocol is feasible and acceptable for remote FTD research.
Study details
- Participants101
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)) |
| 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 | 2023 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 101 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 | — / 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 37180971) |
| 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 “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.