Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity and reliability of a computerized cognitive function evaluation battery (CogEvo) as a screening tool
Yoichi Sawada, Toru Satoh, Hideaki Saba, Hiroshi Kitamoto, Yoshiki Kato, Yoshiko Shiozuka, Tomoko Kuwada, Kana Murakami et al.. PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 2023-01-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors. Structural validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. All two-factor-based subtasks showed adequate internal consistency (MacDonald's omega ≥0.6). The total CogEvo score and two-factor scores were significantly correlated with neuropsychological test results. Based on the total CogEvo score, the cognitively normal and cognitive decline groups were identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with a moderate predictive performance. The cognitive decline group was well identified using the orientation/spatial cognitive function factor. CogEvo is a valid and reliable screening tool for cognitive function evaluation. It proved useful in the early identification of cognitive decline in our study sample.
Key findings
- Exploratory factor analysis revealed the orientation/spatial cognitive function (orientation and spatial cognition) and attention/executive function (attention, memory, and execution) factors.
- Structural validity was supported by confirmatory factor analysis.
- All two-factor-based subtasks showed adequate internal consistency (MacDonald's omega ≥0.6).
- The total CogEvo score and two-factor scores were significantly correlated with neuropsychological test results.
- Based on the total CogEvo score, the cognitively normal and cognitive decline groups were identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis with a moderate predictive performance.
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 (PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences) |
| 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 | 2023 — 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 38868415) |
| 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.
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. 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.
APA 7th
Sawada, Y., Satoh, T., Saba, H., Kitamoto, H., Kato, Y., Shiozuka, Y., et al. (2023). Validity and reliability of a computerized cognitive function evaluation battery (CogEvo) as a screening tool. PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.67
Vancouver
Sawada Y, Satoh T, Saba H, Kitamoto H, Kato Y, Shiozuka Y, et al. Validity and reliability of a computerized cognitive function evaluation battery (CogEvo) as a screening tool. PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences. 2023. doi:10.1002/pcn5.67. PMID: 38868415.
BibTeX
@article{sawada2023-38868415,
author = {Sawada, Yoichi and Satoh, Toru and Saba, Hideaki and Kitamoto, Hiroshi and Kato, Yoshiki and Shiozuka, Yoshiko and Kuwada, Tomoko and Murakami, Kana and others},
title = {{Validity and reliability of a computerized cognitive function evaluation battery (CogEvo) as a screening tool}},
journal = {PCN reports : psychiatry and clinical neurosciences},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1002/pcn5.67},
pmid = {38868415},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/pcn5.67}
}