Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Usability of the Mayo Test Drive remote self-administered web-based cognitive screening battery in adults aged 35-100 with and without cognitive impairment
Patel JS, Christianson TJ, Monahan LT, Frank RD, Fan WZ, Stricker JL, Kremers WK, Karstens AJ et al.. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 2025-02-20
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Mayo Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web-based remote cognitive assessment platform for self-administered neuropsychological measures with previously demonstrated validity and reliability. We examined the usability of MTD and hypothesized that completion rates would be greater than 90%. We explored whether completion and participation rates differed by cognitive status and demographic factors. Methods A total of 1,950 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer's Disease Research Center participants (97% White, 99% Non-Hispanic) were invited to participate in this ancillary, uncompensated remote study. Most invitees were cognitively unimpaired (CU; n = 1,769; 90.7%) and 9.3% were cognitively impaired (CI; n = 181). Usability was objectively defined as the percentage of participants who completed a session after initiating a session for a given timepoint (i.e. completion rates). Results Baseline session completion rates were 98.5% ( n = 1199/1217 participants, mean age 71, SD = 12, range 35-100) and were comparable between CU (98.7%) and CI (95.0%) groups ( p = .23). Completion rates did not significantly differ by age groups ( p > .10) and remained high in individuals 80+ ( n = 251, 97.3%). Participation rates were higher in the CU ( n = 1142, 65.4%) versus CI ( n = 57, 33.1%) group ( p < .001); participants were younger and had more years of education (p's < .001). Adherence (i.e. retention) rate for a 7.5-month follow-up session was 89%. Average session duration was 16 min. Most participants used a personal computer (62.7%), followed by a smartphone (22.2%) or tablet (14.8%). Comments entered by 36.4% of participants reflected several themes including acceptability, face validity, usability, and comments informative for session context. Conclusions MTD demonstrated high usability as defined by completion rates in this research sample that includes a broad age range, though participation rates are lower in individuals with cognitive impairment. Results support good adherence at follow-up, feasibility through mean session duration, and acceptability based on qualitative analysis of participant comments.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Patel, J. S., Christianson, T. J., Monahan, L. T., Frank, R. D., Fan, W. Z., Stricker, J. L., et al. (2025). Usability of the Mayo Test Drive remote self-administered web-based cognitive screening battery in adults aged 35-100 with and without cognitive impairment. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2025.2464633
Vancouver
Patel JS, Christianson TJ, Monahan LT, Frank RD, Fan WZ, Stricker JL, et al. Usability of the Mayo Test Drive remote self-administered web-based cognitive screening battery in adults aged 35-100 with and without cognitive impairment. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology. 2025. doi:10.1080/13803395.2025.2464633. PMID: 39976252.
BibTeX
@article{patel2025-39976252,
author = {Patel, J. S. and Christianson, T. J. and Monahan, L. T. and Frank, R. D. and Fan, W. Z. and Stricker, J. L. and Kremers, W. K. and Karstens, A. J. and others},
title = {{Usability of the Mayo Test Drive remote self-administered web-based cognitive screening battery in adults aged 35-100 with and without cognitive impairment}},
journal = {Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology},
year = {2025},
doi = {10.1080/13803395.2025.2464633},
pmid = {39976252},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2025.2464633}
}
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
- Background Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Mayo Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web-based remote cognitive assessment platform for self-administered neuropsychological measures with previously demonstrated validity and reliability.
- Results Baseline session completion rates were 98.5% ( n = 1199/1217 participants, mean age 71, SD = 12, range 35-100) and were comparable between CU (98.7%) and CI (95.0%) groups ( p = .23).
- Completion rates did not significantly differ by age groups ( p > .10) and remained high in individuals 80+ ( n = 251, 97.3%).
- Participation rates were higher in the CU ( n = 1142, 65.4%) versus CI ( n = 57, 33.1%) group ( p < .001); participants were younger and had more years of education (p's < .001).
- Conclusions MTD demonstrated high usability as defined by completion rates in this research sample that includes a broad age range, though participation rates are lower in individuals with cognitive impairment.
Study details
- Participants1,769
- Effect size90.7%; 9.3%; 98.5%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 55/100
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 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 55 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology) |
| 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 | 4 / 5 | 2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,769 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 39976252) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 32 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 32 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 55 out of 100. |
| Total | 55 / 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 in Cognitive tests and assessment
109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.