Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
The Feasibility of At-Home iPad Cognitive Testing For Use in Clinical Trials
Rentz DM, Dekhtyar M, Sherman J, Burnham S, Blacker D, Aghjayan SL, Papp KV, Amariglio RE et al.. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2016-03-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Plain-language summary
Objectives We used a Computerized Cognitive Composite for Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease (C3-PAD) developed for iPad 1) to determine the feasibility of performing the C3-PAD at home by older individuals without the presence of a trained psychometrician; 2) to explore the reliability of in-clinic compared to at-home C3-PAD performance and 3) to examine the comparability of C3-PAD performance to standardized neuropsychological tests. Correlational analyses examined the association between C3-PAD-clinic compared to C3-PAD-home assessments and between C3-PAD performance and standardized paper and pencil tests. Results Excellent reliability was observed among the 6 C3-PAD alternate versions (Cronbach alpha coefficient=0.93). There were no significant differences in participant age, sex or education between complete and incomplete at-home assessments. A single in-clinic C3-PAD assessment and the at-home C3-PAD assessments were highly associated with each other (r 2 =0.508, p<0.0001), suggesting that at-home tests provide reliable data as in-clinic assessments.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rentz, D. M., Dekhtyar, M., Sherman, J., Burnham, S., Blacker, D., Aghjayan, S. L., et al. (2016). The Feasibility of At-Home iPad Cognitive Testing For Use in Clinical Trials. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2015.78
Vancouver
Rentz DM, Dekhtyar M, Sherman J, Burnham S, Blacker D, Aghjayan SL, et al. The Feasibility of At-Home iPad Cognitive Testing For Use in Clinical Trials. The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease. 2016. doi:10.14283/jpad.2015.78. PMID: 26998469.
BibTeX
@article{rentz2016-26998469,
author = {Rentz, D. M. and Dekhtyar, M. and Sherman, J. and Burnham, S. and Blacker, D. and Aghjayan, S. L. and Papp, K. V. and Amariglio, R. E. and others},
title = {{The Feasibility of At-Home iPad Cognitive Testing For Use in Clinical Trials}},
journal = {The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.14283/jpad.2015.78},
pmid = {26998469},
url = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jpad.2015.78}
}
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.
Key findings
- Objectives We used a Computerized Cognitive Composite for Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease (C3-PAD) developed for iPad 1) to determine the feasibility of performing the C3-PAD at home by older individuals without the presence of a trained psychometrician; 2) to explore the reliability of in-clinic compared to at-home C3-PAD performance and 3) to examine the comparability of C3-PAD performance to standardized neuropsychological tests.
- Correlational analyses examined the association between C3-PAD-clinic compared to C3-PAD-home assessments and between C3-PAD performance and standardized paper and pencil tests.
- Results Excellent reliability was observed among the 6 C3-PAD alternate versions (Cronbach alpha coefficient=0.93).
- There were no significant differences in participant age, sex or education between complete and incomplete at-home assessments.
- A single in-clinic C3-PAD assessment and the at-home C3-PAD assessments were highly associated with each other (r 2 =0.508, p<0.0001), suggesting that at-home tests provide reliable data as in-clinic assessments.
Study details
- Participants49
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease) |
| 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 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 49 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26998469) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment from nearby years
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.