Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity of a Novel Touch Screen Tablet-Based Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable AD in Older Adults
Huang YP, Singh A, Chen S, Sun FJ, Huang CR, Liu SI.. Assessment, 2017-12-18
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
This study aimed to develop a psychometrically valid touch screen tablet-based cognitive test battery to identify early cognitive impairment due to dementia in older adults. The battery includes eight tests with 13 subscores, evaluating visual attention, auditory attention, information processing speed, visual memory, motor control, and visuospatial perception. Among the participants, 43 had been diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 36 with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD); 41 had no cognitive impairment. The average time to administer the tablet-based tests was 10 minutes. Significant correlations with the Mini-Mental State Examination were found in 9 out of 13 subscores. Patients with probable AD scored significantly lower than controls in 8 out of 13 subscores, whereas those with MCI scored significantly lower in 4 out of 13 subscores. Confirmatory factor analysis using Promax rotation showed that four factors caused lower subscores in the MCI group compared with the controls: information processing speed, memory, visuospatial perception, and motor control. All four factors significantly discriminated the controls from the MCI and probable AD groups, and in the expected direction. The touch screen tablet-based cognitive test battery is psychometrically valid for evaluating cognition in older adults.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Huang, Y. P., Singh, A., Chen, S., Sun, F. J., Huang, C. R., & Liu, S. I. (2019). Validity of a Novel Touch Screen Tablet-Based Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable AD in Older Adults. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117748395
Vancouver
Huang YP, Singh A, Chen S, Sun FJ, Huang CR, Liu SI. Validity of a Novel Touch Screen Tablet-Based Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable AD in Older Adults. Assessment. 2019. doi:10.1177/1073191117748395. PMID: 29251514.
BibTeX
@article{huang2019-29251514,
author = {Huang, Y. P. and Singh, A. and Chen, S. and Sun, F. J. and Huang, C. R. and Liu, S. I.},
title = {{Validity of a Novel Touch Screen Tablet-Based Assessment for Mild Cognitive Impairment and Probable AD in Older Adults}},
journal = {Assessment},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1177/1073191117748395},
pmid = {29251514},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117748395}
}
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
- Significant correlations with the Mini-Mental State Examination were found in 9 out of 13 subscores.
- Patients with probable AD scored significantly lower than controls in 8 out of 13 subscores, whereas those with MCI scored significantly lower in 4 out of 13 subscores.
- Confirmatory factor analysis using Promax rotation showed that four factors caused lower subscores in the MCI group compared with the controls: information processing speed, memory, visuospatial perception, and motor control.
- All four factors significantly discriminated the controls from the MCI and probable AD groups, and in the expected direction.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Assessment) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 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 29251514) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 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 “tablet-based”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “tablet-based”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.