Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue ® )
Cahn-Hidalgo D, Estes PW, Benabou R.. World journal of psychiatry, 2020-01-19
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Cognitive issues such as Alzheimer's disease and other dementias confer a substantial negative impact. Problems relating to sensitivity, subjectivity, and inherent bias can limit the usefulness of many traditional methods of assessing cognitive impairment. Aim To determine cut-off scores for classification of cognitive impairment, and assess Cognivue ® safety and efficacy in a large validation study. Methods Adults (age 55-95 years) at risk for age-related cognitive decline or dementia were invited via posters and email to participate in two cohort studies conducted at various outpatient clinics and assisted- and independent-living facilities. In the cut-off score determination study ( n = 92), optimization analyses by positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA), and by accuracy and error bias were conducted. In the clinical validation study ( n = 401), regression, rank linear regression, and factor analyses were conducted. Participants in the clinical validation study also completed other neuropsychological tests. Results For the cut-off score determination study, 92 participants completed St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS, reference standard) and Cognivue ® tests. Analyses showed that SLUMS cut-off scores of < 21 (impairment) and > 26 (no impairment) corresponded to Cognivue ® scores of 54.5 (NPA = 0.92; PPA = 0.64) and 78.5 (NPA = 0.5; PPA = 0.79), respectively. Therefore, conservatively, Cognivue ® scores of 55-64 corresponded to impairment, and 74-79 to no impairment. For the clinical validation study, 401 participants completed ≥ 1 testing session, and 358 completed 2 sessions 1-2 wk apart. Cognivue ® classification scores were validated, demonstrating good agreement with SLUMS scores (weighted κ 0.57; 95%CI: 0.50-0.63). Reliability analyses showed similar scores across repeated testing for Cognivue ® ( R 2 = 0.81; r = 0.90) and SLUMS ( R 2 = 0.67; r = 0.82). Psychometric validity of Cognivue ® was demonstrated vs. traditional neuropsychological tests. Scores were most closely correlated with measures of verbal processing, manual dexterity/speed, visual contrast sensitivity, visuospatial/executive function, and speed/sequencing. Conclusion Cognivue ® scores ≤ 50 avoid misclassification of impairment, and scores ≥ 75 avoid misclassification of unimpairment. The validation study demonstrates good agreement between Cognivue ® and SLUMS; superior reliability; and good psychometric validity.
Key findings
- Results For the cut-off score determination study, 92 participants completed St.
- Analyses showed that SLUMS cut-off scores of < 21 (impairment) and > 26 (no impairment) corresponded to Cognivue ® scores of 54.5 (NPA = 0.92; PPA = 0.64) and 78.5 (NPA = 0.5; PPA = 0.79), respectively.
- Psychometric validity of Cognivue ® was demonstrated vs. traditional neuropsychological tests.
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants92
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 64/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 64 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (World journal of psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 92 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 31956523) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 37 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 37 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 64 out of 100. |
| Total | 64 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Cahn-Hidalgo, D., Estes, P. W., & Benabou, R. (2020). Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue ® ). World journal of psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v10.i1.1
Vancouver
Cahn-Hidalgo D, Estes PW, Benabou R. Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue ® ). World journal of psychiatry. 2020. doi:10.5498/wjp.v10.i1.1. PMID: 31956523.
BibTeX
@article{cahnhidalgo2020-31956523,
author = {Cahn-Hidalgo, D. and Estes, P. W. and Benabou, R.},
title = {{Validity, reliability, and psychometric properties of a computerized, cognitive assessment test (Cognivue ® )}},
journal = {World journal of psychiatry},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.5498/wjp.v10.i1.1},
pmid = {31956523},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v10.i1.1}
}