Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 25 out of 100. Risk factors

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Neuropsychologists are increasingly being asked to determine whether a patient can return to work, classroom, or play (e.g., sports). A difficulty for the neuropsychological assessment of cognitive functioning is that patients’ performance on a cognitive test may have little or no predictive value for how they may perform in a real-world situation (Burgess, Alderman, Evans, Emslie, & Wilson, 1998; Chaytor, Schmitter-Edgecombe, & Burr, 2006). To address this issue, neuropsychologists are increasingly emphasizing the need for tasks that represent real-world func­tioning and that tap into a number of executive domains (Chaytor & Schmitter-Edgecombe, 2003; Jurado & Rosselli, 2007). Burgess and colleagues (2006) argue that the majority of neuropsychological assessments currently in use today were developed to assess abstract cognitive “constructs” without regard for their ability to predict “functional” behavior. For example, although the construct-driven Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) is one of the most widely used measures of executive function, it was not originally developed as a measure of executive functioning. Instead, the WCST was preceded by a number of sorting measures that were developed from observations of the effects of brain damage (e.g., Weigl, 1927). While Milner (1963) found that patients with dorsolateral prefrontal lesions had greater difficulty on the WCST than patients with orbitofrontal or nonfrontal lesions, other studies have shown that patients with frontal lobe pathology do not always differ from control subjects on the WCST (Stuss et al., 1983). Some may argue that while there have been some inconsistencies in the literature, data from the construct-driven WCST do appear to provide information relevant to the constructs of set shifting and working memory. However, it can also be argued that the data do not necessarily offer information that would allow a neuropsychologist to predict what situations in everyday life require the abilities that the WCST measures. A number of investigators have argued that performance on traditional tests has little correspondence to everyday activities of daily living. This can leave the neuropsychologist uncertain of the efficacy of the tests for predicting the way in which patients will manage in their everyday lives (Bottari, Dassa, Rainville, & Dutil, 2009; Manchester, Priestly, & Howard, 2004; Sbordone, 2008).

Key findings

Why it matters

This chapter discusses the Virtual Environment Grocery Store as a tool for neuropsychological assessment of real-world functioning. It does not test any treatment, cure, or prevention for Alzheimer's disease.

Study details

How this study scored 25/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited 1 of 7; Citations per year 0 of 5; Impact for its field and year 0 of 6; Cited by studies here 0 of 6; Still being cited 0 of 4; Senior author's track record 1 of 4; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration 0 of 3; Indexed in PubMed 1 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 23 of the 93 points it could be judged on, which is 25 of 100. Total 25 of 100.23 of the 93 points we could judge = 25 of 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 93 points we could judge it on, which is 25 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Role of Technology in Clinical Neuropsychology)
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 2017 — 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 1 / 7 Cited 3 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year 0 / 5 0.3 citations a year over 11 year(s) since 2017
Impact for its field and year 0 / 6 Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here 0 / 6 No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited 0 / 4 Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record 1 / 4 Last-listed author Timothy McMahan: h-index 10 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration 0 / 3 OpenAlex lists 0 institution(s) in 0 countries — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete)
Indexed in PubMed 1 / 2 Not in PubMed, but has a DOI
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 23 / 93 Scored on 18 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 93 points we could judge it on is 25 out of 100.
Total 25 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.

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

Parsons, T. D., & McMahan, T. (2017). Virtual Environment Grocery Store. The Role of Technology in Clinical Neuropsychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190234737.003.0013

Vancouver

Parsons TD, McMahan T. Virtual Environment Grocery Store. The Role of Technology in Clinical Neuropsychology. 2017. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190234737.003.0013.

BibTeX

@article{parsons2017-7905e5f1,
  author  = {Parsons, Thomas D. and McMahan, Timothy},
  title   = {{Virtual Environment Grocery Store}},
  journal = {The Role of Technology in Clinical Neuropsychology},
  year    = {2017},
  doi     = {10.1093/oso/9780190234737.003.0013},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190234737.003.0013}
}

Related studies in Risk factors

Similar studies

More on Risk factors

See all studies in Risk factors →