Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review
Wild K, Howieson D, Webbe F, Seelye A, Kaye J.. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association, 2008-11-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Early detection of cognitive decline in the elderly has become of heightened importance in parallel with the recent advances in therapeutics. Computerized assessment might be uniquely suited to early detection of changes in cognition in the elderly. We present here a systematic review of the status of computer-based cognitive testing, focusing on detection of cognitive decline in the aging population. Methods All studies purporting to assess or detect age-related changes in cognition or early dementia/mild cognitive impairment by means of computerized testing were included. Each test battery was rated on availability of normative data, level of evidence for test validity and reliability, comprehensiveness, and usability. All published studies relevant to a particular computerized test were read by a minimum of two reviewers, who completed rating forms containing the above mentioned criteria. Results Of the 18 test batteries identified from the initial search, 11 were appropriate to cognitive testing in the elderly and were subjected to systematic review. Of those 11, five were either developed specifically for application with the elderly or have been used extensively with that population. Even within the computerized testing genre, great variability existed in manner of administration, ranging from fully examiner-administered to fully self-administered. All tests had at least minimal reliability and validity data, commonly reported in peer-reviewed articles. However, level of rigor of validity testing varied widely. Conclusion All test batteries exhibited some of the strengths of computerized cognitive testing: standardization of administration and stimulus presentation, accurate measures of response latencies, automated comparison in real time with an individual's prior performance as well as with age-related norms, and efficiencies of staffing and cost. Some, such as the Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen, adapted complicated scoring algorithms to enhance the information gathered from already existing tests. Others, such as CogState, used unique interfaces and subtests. We found that although basic indices of psychometric properties were typically addressed, sufficient variability exists that currently available computerized test batteries must be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Key findings
- Results Of the 18 test batteries identified from the initial search, 11 were appropriate to cognitive testing in the elderly and were subjected to systematic review.
- We found that although basic indices of psychometric properties were typically addressed, sufficient variability exists that currently available computerized test batteries must be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people 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 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 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 | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2008 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| 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 19012868) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 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
Wild, K., Howieson, D., Webbe, F., Seelye, A., & Kaye, J. (2008). Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003
Vancouver
Wild K, Howieson D, Webbe F, Seelye A, Kaye J. Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review. Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003. PMID: 19012868.
BibTeX
@article{wild2008-19012868,
author = {Wild, K. and Howieson, D. and Webbe, F. and Seelye, A. and Kaye, J.},
title = {{Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review}},
journal = {Alzheimer's \& dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003},
pmid = {19012868},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003}
}