Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validation of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Test: NNCT
Itxasne Oliva, Joan Losa. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022-08-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Population aging brings with it cognitive impairment. One of the challenges of the coming years is the early and accessible detection of cognitive impairment. Therefore, this study aims to validate a neuropsychological screening test, self-administered and in software format, called NAIHA Neuro Cognitive Test (NNCT), designed for elderly people with and without cognitive impairment. This test aims to digitize cognitive assessments to add greater accessibility than classic tests, as well as to present results in real time and reduce costs. To this end, a comparison is made with tests such as MMSE, Clock Drawing Test (CDT) and CAMCOG. For this purpose, the following statistical analyses were performed: correlations, ROC curves, and three ANOVAs. The NNCT test evaluates seven cognitive areas and shows a significant and positive correlation with other tests, at total and subareas levels. Scores are established for the detection of both mild cognitive impairment and dementia, presenting optimal sensitivity and specificity. It is concluded that the NNCT test is a valid method of detection of cognitive impairment.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Oliva, I., & Losa, J. (2022). Validation of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Test: NNCT. International journal of environmental research and public health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710495
Vancouver
Oliva I, Losa J. Validation of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Test: NNCT. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2022. doi:10.3390/ijerph191710495. PMID: 36078210.
BibTeX
@article{oliva2022-36078210,
author = {Oliva, Itxasne and Losa, Joan},
title = {{Validation of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Test: NNCT}},
journal = {International journal of environmental research and public health},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3390/ijerph191710495},
pmid = {36078210},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710495}
}
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
- This test aims to digitize cognitive assessments to add greater accessibility than classic tests, as well as to present results in real time and reduce costs.
- The NNCT test evaluates seven cognitive areas and shows a significant and positive correlation with other tests, at total and subareas levels.
- It is concluded that the NNCT test is a valid method of detection of cognitive impairment.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of environmental research and public health) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 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 | 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 36078210) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.