Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Remote, self-administered, smartphone cognitive testing in a registry-based cohort: Feasibility, reliability, and validity findings
Sreya Dhanam, Mark Sanderson-Cimino, Jack Carson Taylor, Emily W Paolillo, Ray Fregly, Winnie Kwang, Paul Maruff, Amy Wise et al.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2026-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Adherence was high (82.2%) and usability favorable. Test-retest reliability was moderate to strong (ρ's = 0.61-0.85, all p's < 0.001). Lower smartphone scores were associated with older age, lower education, cognitive concerns, and worse Cogstate performance. Findings support the feasibility, reliability, and validity of remote digital assessments in adults without a record of cognitive impairment.
Key findings
- Adherence was high (82.2%) and usability favorable.
- Test-retest reliability was moderate to strong (ρ's = 0.61-0.85, all p's < 0.001).
- Lower smartphone scores were associated with older age, lower education, cognitive concerns, and worse Cogstate performance.
- Findings support the feasibility, reliability, and validity of remote digital assessments in adults without a record of cognitive impairment.
Study details
- Participants1,815
- Effect size82.2%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a leading specialty 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 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 66 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 | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,815 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 42273832) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 37 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 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
Dhanam, S., Sanderson-Cimino, M., Taylor, J. C., Paolillo, E. W., Fregly, R., Kwang, W., et al. (2026). Remote, self-administered, smartphone cognitive testing in a registry-based cohort: Feasibility, reliability, and validity findings. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71580
Vancouver
Dhanam S, Sanderson-Cimino M, Taylor JC, Paolillo EW, Fregly R, Kwang W, et al. Remote, self-administered, smartphone cognitive testing in a registry-based cohort: Feasibility, reliability, and validity findings. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2026. doi:10.1002/alz.71580. PMID: 42273832.
BibTeX
@article{dhanam2026-42273832,
author = {Dhanam, Sreya and Sanderson-Cimino, Mark and Taylor, Jack Carson and Paolillo, Emily W and Fregly, Ray and Kwang, Winnie and Maruff, Paul and Wise, Amy and others},
title = {{Remote, self-administered, smartphone cognitive testing in a registry-based cohort: Feasibility, reliability, and validity findings}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.1002/alz.71580},
pmid = {42273832},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.71580}
}