Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Practice effects on digital cognitive assessment tools: insights from the defense automated neurobehavioral assessment battery
Bellitti M, Lauber MV, Searls E, Lin H, Au R, Kolachalama VB.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2025-09-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Introduction Digital cognitive assessments offer a promising approach to monitoring cognitive impairments, but repeated use can introduce practice effects, potentially masking changes in cognitive status. We evaluated practice effects using the Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA), a digital battery designed for cognitive monitoring. Methods We analyzed data from 116 participants from the Boston University Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, comparing response times across two DANA sessions, around 90 days apart, while controlling for cognitive status, sex, age, and education. Results Modest practice effects were found, and cognitive impairment was associated with slower response times in several tasks. Classification models, including logistic regression and random forest classification, achieved accuracies of up to 71% in assessing cognitive status. Discussion Our study establishes a framework for evaluating practice effects in digital cognitive assessment tools. Future work should expand the sample size and diversity to enhance the generalizability of findings in broader clinical contexts. Highlights We systematically evaluated practice effects using the DANA battery as a case study. Modest practice effects were observed across two testing sessions, with a median inter-session interval of 93 days. Cognitive impairment was significantly associated with slower response times in key tasks (p < 0.001). Our framework offers a systematic approach for evaluating practice effects in digital cognitive tools.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bellitti, M., Lauber, M. V., Searls, E., Lin, H., Au, R., & Kolachalama, V. B. (2025). Practice effects on digital cognitive assessment tools: insights from the defense automated neurobehavioral assessment battery. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70644
Vancouver
Bellitti M, Lauber MV, Searls E, Lin H, Au R, Kolachalama VB. Practice effects on digital cognitive assessment tools: insights from the defense automated neurobehavioral assessment battery. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2025. doi:10.1002/alz.70644. PMID: 40911708.
BibTeX
@article{bellitti2025-40911708,
author = {Bellitti, M. and Lauber, M. V. and Searls, E. and Lin, H. and Au, R. and Kolachalama, V. B.},
title = {{Practice effects on digital cognitive assessment tools: insights from the defense automated neurobehavioral assessment battery}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1002/alz.70644},
pmid = {40911708},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.70644}
}
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
- Results Modest practice effects were found, and cognitive impairment was associated with slower response times in several tasks.
- Cognitive impairment was significantly associated with slower response times in key tasks (p < 0.001).
Study details
- Participants116
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
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 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 116 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 40911708) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.