Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment
Scanlon L, O'Shea E, O'Caoimh R, Timmons S.. Gerontology, 2015-06-24
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Computerised cognitive screening (CCS) has the potential to detect cognitive impairment in the community, which is important for the early diagnosis of dementia. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of older adults with dementia to engage with smart phone and tablet technologies and to determine the accuracy of a battery of CCS tasks to detect cognitive impairment in comparison with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Methods Patients with mild-moderate dementia (n = 40) attending a university-linked day hospital and normal controls (n = 20) completed (i) a questionnaire detailing the frequency and breadth of their technology use, (ii) three commercially available CCS tasks, and (iii) the MoCA. Results The three CCS tasks were completed by 85% (n = 34) of the patients with dementia and all controls; only 4 reported the task as 'hard'. Those with dementia scored significantly lower on the CCS than controls (p < 0.001). CCS scores correlated with total MoCA scores (r = 0.78, p < 0.01). Further, the CCS scores significantly predicted MoCA scores, controlling for the effects of age, gender, educational attainment, and frequency of technology use (β = 0.71, p < 0.001), explaining 65.2% of the variance. Total CCS and MoCA scores (cut-off score <24) had similar sensitivity (94 and 95%, respectively) and accuracy (area under the curve 0.94 and 0.99, respectively, p = 0.5) in discriminating dementia from controls, though the CSS had lower specificity (60 vs. 100% for the MoCA). Conclusion The participants had little difficulty self-administering the CCS, which is an oft-cited barrier to computerised testing in this population. Our results support the criterion and construct validity of a CCS versus the commonly used MoCA. Although further research is required, CCS for cognitive impairment may be useful in the community and, by prompting referral to specialist services, could lead to an earlier diagnosis of dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Scanlon, L., O'Shea, E., O'Caoimh, R., & Timmons, S. (2016). Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000433432
Vancouver
Scanlon L, O'Shea E, O'Caoimh R, Timmons S. Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment. Gerontology. 2016. doi:10.1159/000433432. PMID: 26113397.
BibTeX
@article{scanlon2016-26113397,
author = {Scanlon, L. and O'Shea, E. and O'Caoimh, R. and Timmons, S.},
title = {{Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment}},
journal = {Gerontology},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1159/000433432},
pmid = {26113397},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000433432}
}
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 three CCS tasks were completed by 85% (n = 34) of the patients with dementia and all controls; only 4 reported the task as 'hard'.
- Those with dementia scored significantly lower on the CCS than controls (p < 0.001).
- Further, the CCS scores significantly predicted MoCA scores, controlling for the effects of age, gender, educational attainment, and frequency of technology use (β = 0.71, p < 0.001), explaining 65.2% of the variance.
- Our results support the criterion and construct validity of a CCS versus the commonly used MoCA.
Study details
- Participants40
- Effect size65.2%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 47/100
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 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 (Gerontology) |
| 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 | 40 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 26113397) |
| 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.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
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.