Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia
Hammers D, Spurgeon E, Ryan K, Persad C, Barbas N, Heidebrink J, Darby D, Giordani B.. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology, 2012-06-01
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background While preliminary evidence supports the criterion validity of the CogState computerized brief battery in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer disease (AD), definitive validation studies examining a wider range of dementia-related disorders relative to conventional neuropsychological techniques are necessary. Methods Participants satisfying clinical consensus criteria for dementia (AD, n = 37; frontotemporal dementia, n = 7; and dementia with Lewy bodies, n = 5), MCI (n = 16), and the healthy controls (n = 22) were administered a battery of brief neuropsychological and select computerized (CogState) cognitive tests. The battery, administered through the University of Michigan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, included measures of processing speed, attention, working memory, and learning. Results CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState. Correlations were modest between conventional and computerized test scores, covering matching domains and mostly reflecting the multidimensional nature of cognitive paradigms. Conclusions Results support the clinical validity of this brief computerized screening battery when used in established dementias, but not to differentiate between various dementias, and suggest that the select CogState battery's effectiveness in identifying MCI from controls was not as strong as identifying specific dementias.
Key findings
- Results CogState and standard neuropsychological task scores were significantly lower for dementia participants than that of the nondementia groups (P < .05), with a single CogState test distinguishing control from MCI participants, but minimal differentiation existing between dementias using the CogState.
- Conclusions Results support the clinical validity of this brief computerized screening battery when used in established dementias, but not to differentiate between various dementias, and suggest that the select CogState battery's effectiveness in identifying MCI from controls was not as strong as identifying specific dementias.
Study details
- Participants37
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported 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 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 (Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology) |
| 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 | 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 37 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) |
| 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 22689701) |
| 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.
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 names 8 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Hammers, D., Spurgeon, E., Ryan, K., Persad, C., Barbas, N., Heidebrink, J., et al. (2012). Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988712447894
Vancouver
Hammers D, Spurgeon E, Ryan K, Persad C, Barbas N, Heidebrink J, et al. Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia. Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology. 2012. doi:10.1177/0891988712447894. PMID: 22689701.
BibTeX
@article{hammers2012-22689701,
author = {Hammers, D. and Spurgeon, E. and Ryan, K. and Persad, C. and Barbas, N. and Heidebrink, J. and Darby, D. and Giordani, B.},
title = {{Validity of a brief computerized cognitive screening test in dementia}},
journal = {Journal of geriatric psychiatry and neurology},
year = {2012},
doi = {10.1177/0891988712447894},
pmid = {22689701},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0891988712447894}
}
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.