| Summary: | Telepractice in neuropsychology has become increasingly prevalent in recent years due to its ability to provide accessible and convenient care to patients regardless of their location. However, the validation of many neuropsychological tools for distance assessments remains limited, and there is a particular lack of remotely administered assessment tests with alternate forms, which are crucial for monitoring symptoms and performance in clinical contexts and for minimizing practice effects in research practice. Consequently, the present study was aimed at evaluating the consistency of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) scores across videoconference and face-to-face administrations and to examine whether the scores obtained via videoconference support interpretations similar to those obtained via face-to-face administration. A total of 185 participants aged between 20 and 79 years (M=46.24, SD=19.63) underwent RBANS testing twice: once in person using the standard pen-and-paper modality and once remotely via videoconference, using Alternate Forms A and B to mitigate the learning effects. Results from the linear mixed models revealed no significant differences between remote and face-to-face administrations based on the modality of administration (p>0.05). Bayes factors supported the null hypothesis, suggesting that RBANS performance is consistent across the two modalities of administration. However, discrepancies were observed in certain subtests between alternate forms of the RBANS, highlighting the need for standardization. In conclusion, findings suggested that the same norms that are used to interpret the RBANS scores obtained via face-to-face administration may be employed when administered remotely through videoconferencing. Accordingly, the study provides valuable insights into the feasibility of remote neuropsychological assessment and underscores the potential utility of videoconference technology in clinical and research settings.
|
|---|
