Comparison of PC and iPad administrations of the Cogstate Brief Battery in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging: Assessing cross-modality equivalence of computerized neuropsychological tests

Objective: Computerized neuropsychological assessments are increasingly used in clinical practice, population studies of cognitive aging and clinical trial enrichment. Subtle, but significant, performance differences have been demonstrated across different modes of test administration and require fu...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Edwards, K.K (Author), Knopman, D.S (Author), Kremers, W.K (Author), Lundt, E.S (Author), Machulda, M.M (Author), Mielke, M.M (Author), Petersen, R.C (Author), Roberts, R.O (Author), Stricker, N.H (Author)
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Routledge 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:View Fulltext in Publisher
LEADER 03371nam a2200517Ia 4500
001 10.1080-13854046.2018.1519085
008 220511s2019 CNT 000 0 und d
020 |a 13854046 (ISSN) 
245 1 0 |a Comparison of PC and iPad administrations of the Cogstate Brief Battery in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging: Assessing cross-modality equivalence of computerized neuropsychological tests 
260 0 |b Routledge  |c 2019 
856 |z View Fulltext in Publisher  |u https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1519085 
520 3 |a Objective: Computerized neuropsychological assessments are increasingly used in clinical practice, population studies of cognitive aging and clinical trial enrichment. Subtle, but significant, performance differences have been demonstrated across different modes of test administration and require further investigation. Method: Participants included cognitively unimpaired adults aged 50 and older from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who completed the Cogstate Brief Battery and Cogstate’s Groton Maze Learning Test (GMLT) on an iPad or a personal computer (PC) in the clinic. Mode of administration differences and test–retest reliability coefficients were examined across 3 cohorts: a demographically matched test–retest cohort completing PC and iPad administrations the same day (N = 168); a test naïve cohort comparing baseline PC (n = 1820) and iPad (n =605) performance; and a demographically matched longitudinal cohort completing 3 Cogstate visits over 15 months on either the PC (n =63) or iPad (n =63). Results: Results showed a small but statistically significant and consistent finding for faster performance on PC relative to iPad for several Cogstate Brief Battery measures. Measures of accuracy generally did not differ or differences were very small. The GMLT showed faster performance and higher total errors on iPad. Most Cogstate variables showed no difference in the rate of change across PC and iPad administrations. Conclusions: There are small, but significant, differences in performance when giving the same cognitive tests on a PC or an iPad. Future studies are needed to better understand if these small differences impact the clinical interpretation of results and research outcomes. © 2018, © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. 
650 0 4 |a aged 
650 0 4 |a Aged 
650 0 4 |a aging 
650 0 4 |a Aging 
650 0 4 |a cognitively unimpaired 
650 0 4 |a cohort analysis 
650 0 4 |a Cohort Studies 
650 0 4 |a computer 
650 0 4 |a computerized testing 
650 0 4 |a Computers 
650 0 4 |a female 
650 0 4 |a Female 
650 0 4 |a Groton Maze Learning Test (GMLT) 
650 0 4 |a human 
650 0 4 |a Humans 
650 0 4 |a male 
650 0 4 |a Male 
650 0 4 |a neuropsychological test 
650 0 4 |a Neuropsychological Tests 
650 0 4 |a Neuropsychology 
650 0 4 |a physiology 
650 0 4 |a reliability 
650 0 4 |a reproducibility 
650 0 4 |a Reproducibility of Results 
700 1 |a Edwards, K.K.  |e author 
700 1 |a Knopman, D.S.  |e author 
700 1 |a Kremers, W.K.  |e author 
700 1 |a Lundt, E.S.  |e author 
700 1 |a Machulda, M.M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Mielke, M.M.  |e author 
700 1 |a Petersen, R.C.  |e author 
700 1 |a Roberts, R.O.  |e author 
700 1 |a Stricker, N.H.  |e author 
773 |t Clinical Neuropsychologist