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.

55/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 55 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Findings showed overall high compliance (89.3%) across M2C2 sessions. Average compliance by time of day ranged from 90.2% for morning sessions, to 77.9% for afternoon sessions, and 84.4% for evening sessions. There was evidence of faster reaction time and among participants who expected to receive performance feedback. We observed excellent convergent and divergent validity in our comparison of M2C2 tasks and traditional neuropsychological assessments. This study supports the validity and reliability of self-administered, high-frequency cognitive assessment via smartphones in older adults. Insights into factors affecting adherence, performance, and protocol implementation are discussed.

Key findings

Findings showed overall high compliance (89.3%) across M2C2 sessions.
Average compliance by time of day ranged from 90.2% for morning sessions, to 77.9% for afternoon sessions, and 84.4% for evening sessions.
There was evidence of faster reaction time and among participants who expected to receive performance feedback.
We observed excellent convergent and divergent validity in our comparison of M2C2 tasks and traditional neuropsychological assessments.
This study supports the validity and reliability of self-administered, high-frequency cognitive assessment via smartphones in older adults.

Study details

Participants120
Effect size68.3%; 89.3%; 90.2%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 55/100

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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS)
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	2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	120 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 39301587)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	31 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 56 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.

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

Thompson, L. I., De Vito, A. N., Kunicki, Z. J., Emrani, S., Strenger, J., Nester, C., et al. (2024). Psychometric and adherence considerations for high-frequency, smartphone-based cognitive screening protocols in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000328

Vancouver

Thompson LI, De Vito AN, Kunicki ZJ, Emrani S, Strenger J, Nester C, et al. Psychometric and adherence considerations for high-frequency, smartphone-based cognitive screening protocols in older adults. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS. 2024. doi:10.1017/s1355617724000328. PMID: 39301587.

BibTeX

@article{thompson2024-39301587,
  author  = {Thompson, Louisa I and De Vito, Alyssa N and Kunicki, Zachary J and Emrani, Sheina and Strenger, Jennifer and Nester, Caroline and Harrington, Karra D and Roque, Nelson and others},
  title   = {{Psychometric and adherence considerations for high-frequency, smartphone-based cognitive screening protocols in older adults}},
  journal = {Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS},
  year    = {2024},
  doi     = {10.1017/s1355617724000328},
  pmid    = {39301587},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355617724000328}
}

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →