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 48 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology

We investigated whether a validated computerized cognitive test, the Computerized Assessment of Mild Cognitive Impairment (CAMCI), could be independently completed by older primary care patients. We also determined the optimal cut-off for the CAMCI global risk score for mild cognitive impairment against an independent neuropsychological reference standard. All eligible patients aged 65 years and older, seen consecutively over 2 months by 1 family practice of 13 primary care physicians, were invited to participate. Patients with a diagnosis or previous work-up for dementia were excluded. Primary care physicians indicated whether they, the patient, or family had concerns about each patient's cognition. A total of 130 patients with cognitive concerns and a matched sample of 133 without cognitive concerns were enrolled. The CAMCI was individually administered after instructions to work independently. Comments were recorded verbatim. A total of 259 (98.5%) completed the entire CAMCI. Two hundred and forty-one (91.6%) completed it without any questions or after simple acknowledgment of their question. Lack of computer experience was the only patient characteristic that decreased the odds of independent CAMCI completion. These results support the feasibility of using self-administered computerized cognitive tests with older primary care patients, given the increasing reliance on computers by people of all ages. The optimal cut-off score had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 74%.

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

APA 7th

Tierney, M. C., Naglie, G., Upshur, R., Moineddin, R., Charles, J., & Jaakkimainen, R. L. (2014). Feasibility and validity of the self-administered computerized assessment of mild cognitive impairment with older primary care patients. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000036

Vancouver

Tierney MC, Naglie G, Upshur R, Moineddin R, Charles J, Jaakkimainen RL. Feasibility and validity of the self-administered computerized assessment of mild cognitive impairment with older primary care patients. Alzheimer disease and associated disorders. 2014. doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000036. PMID: 24614274.

BibTeX

@article{tierney2014-24614274,
  author  = {Tierney, M. C. and Naglie, G. and Upshur, R. and Moineddin, R. and Charles, J. and Jaakkimainen, R. L.},
  title   = {{Feasibility and validity of the self-administered computerized assessment of mild cognitive impairment with older primary care patients}},
  journal = {Alzheimer disease and associated disorders},
  year    = {2014},
  doi     = {10.1097/wad.0000000000000036},
  pmid    = {24614274},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1097/wad.0000000000000036}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 48/100
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 1 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 0 of 2. 28 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 48 of 100. Total 48 of 100.28 of the 58 points we could judge = 48 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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer disease and associated disorders)
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 1 / 5 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 130 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 24614274)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 28 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100.
Total 48 / 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.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →