Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Psychometric Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study
McMurray J, Levy A, Pang W, Holyoke P.. Journal of medical Internet research, 2024-04-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Results The study found that the SCREEN's longer administration time and complex scoring algorithm, which is proprietary and unavailable for independent analysis, presented challenges.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
McMurray, J., Levy, A., Pang, W., & Holyoke, P. (2024). Psychometric Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/56883
Vancouver
McMurray J, Levy A, Pang W, Holyoke P. Psychometric Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study. Journal of medical Internet research. 2024. doi:10.2196/56883. PMID: 38640480.
BibTeX
@article{mcmurray2024-38640480,
author = {McMurray, J. and Levy, A. and Pang, W. and Holyoke, P.},
title = {{Psychometric Evaluation of a Tablet-Based Tool to Detect Mild Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study}},
journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.2196/56883},
pmid = {38640480},
url = {https://doi.org/10.2196/56883}
}
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 The study found that the SCREEN's longer administration time and complex scoring algorithm, which is proprietary and unavailable for independent analysis, presented challenges.
Study details
- Participants147
- Effect size63.25%; 74.07%; 65.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 57/100
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 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of medical Internet research) |
| 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 | 147 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 38640480) |
| 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.