Home › Research › Risk factors
Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs
Gualtieri CT, Johnson LG.. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2006-10-02
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
CNS Vital Signs (CNSVS) is a computerized neurocognitive test battery that was developed as a routine clinical screening instrument. It is comprised of seven tests: verbal and visual memory, finger tapping, symbol digit coding, the Stroop Test, a test of shifting attention and the continuous performance test. Because CNSVS is a battery of well-known neuropsychological tests, one should expect its psychometric properties to resemble those of the conventional tests upon which it is based. 1069 subjects age 7-90 participated in the normative database for CNSVS. Test-retest reliability (TRT) was evaluated in 99 Ss who took the battery on two separate occasions, separated, on the average, by 62 days; the results were comparable to those achieved by equivalent conventional and computerized tests. Concurrent validity studies in 180 subjects, normals and neuropsychiatric patients, indicate correlations that are comparable to the concurrent validity of similar tests. Discriminant validity is supported by studies of patients with mild cognitive impairment and dementia, post-concussion syndrome and severe traumatic brain injury, ADHD (treated and untreated) and depression (treated and untreated). The tests in CNSVS are also sensitive to malingerers and patients with conversion disorders. The psychometric characteristics of the tests in the CNSVS battery are very similar to the characteristics of the conventional neuropsychological tests upon which they are based. CNSVS is suitable for use as a screening instrument, or as a serial assessment measure. But it is not a substitute for formal neuropsychological testing, it is not diagnostic, and it will have only a limited role in the medical setting, absent the active participation of consulting neuropsychologists.
Key findings
- Test-retest reliability (TRT) was evaluated in 99 Ss who took the battery on two separate occasions, separated, on the average, by 62 days; the results were comparable to those achieved by equivalent conventional and computerized tests.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Participants1,069
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
Published in a peer-reviewed 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 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 47 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists) |
| 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 | 2006 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,069 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 17014981) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 27 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 27 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 47 out of 100. |
| Total | 47 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Gualtieri, C. T., & Johnson, L. G. (2006). Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.05.007
Vancouver
Gualtieri CT, Johnson LG. Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs. Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.05.007. PMID: 17014981.
BibTeX
@article{gualtieri2006-17014981,
author = {Gualtieri, C. T. and Johnson, L. G.},
title = {{Reliability and validity of a computerized neurocognitive test battery, CNS Vital Signs}},
journal = {Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1016/j.acn.2006.05.007},
pmid = {17014981},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.05.007}
}