BACKGROUND: Telehealth could be a medium for the provision of cognitive assessments to distant sites. AIMS: The aims of the present study were to determine the interrater reliability of the Standardized Mini Mental State Exam (SMMSE) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) through Telehealth as compared to face-to-face administration. METHODS: Duplicate interviews of subjects with crossover of interview modality were carried out. Twenty patients were interviewed between two sites 11 km apart. Subjects were persons older than 65 years (mean age 82 years) who consented to Telehealth assessments. The outcome measures were the differences in assessment scores between the two media. RESULTS: The average SMMSE score by remote assessment was 24.0 (range 11.0-30.0) and by direct assessment was 24.3 (range 9.0-30.0). The correlation between direct and remote SMMSE scores was 0.90. The mean difference between direct and remote SMMSE scores was -0.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.6 to 4.0). In 8 of 20 participants (40%) the difference between Telehealth and direct assessments was two points or more on the SMMSE. The average GDS by remote assessment was 6.1 (range 1.0-14.0) and by direct assessment was 5.8 (range 2.0-13.0). The correlation between direct and remote GDS scores was 0.78. The mean difference between direct and remote GDS assessment was 0.3 (95% CI: -3.8 to 4.4). CONCLUSION: Remote assessments with SMMSE and GDS using Telehealth methods yielded similar results to direct assessments. However, there was a moderate difference between face-to-face and Telehealth assessments in some subjects, which could influence clinical decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Telehealth could be a medium for the provision of cognitive assessments to distant sites. AIMS: The aims of the present study were to determine the interrater reliability of the Standardized Mini Mental State Exam (SMMSE) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) through Telehealth as compared to face-to-face administration. METHODS: Duplicate interviews of subjects with crossover of interview modality were carried out. Twenty patients were interviewed between two sites 11 km apart. Subjects were persons older than 65 years (mean age 82 years) who consented to Telehealth assessments. The outcome measures were the differences in assessment scores between the two media. RESULTS: The average SMMSE score by remote assessment was 24.0 (range 11.0-30.0) and by direct assessment was 24.3 (range 9.0-30.0). The correlation between direct and remote SMMSE scores was 0.90. The mean difference between direct and remote SMMSE scores was -0.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.6 to 4.0). In 8 of 20 participants (40%) the difference between Telehealth and direct assessments was two points or more on the SMMSE. The average GDS by remote assessment was 6.1 (range 1.0-14.0) and by direct assessment was 5.8 (range 2.0-13.0). The correlation between direct and remote GDS scores was 0.78. The mean difference between direct and remote GDS assessment was 0.3 (95% CI: -3.8 to 4.4). CONCLUSION: Remote assessments with SMMSE and GDS using Telehealth methods yielded similar results to direct assessments. However, there was a moderate difference between face-to-face and Telehealth assessments in some subjects, which could influence clinical decision-making.
Authors: Jeanine M Galusha-Glasscock; Daniel K Horton; Myron F Weiner; C Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Debra G Morgan; Margaret Crossley; Andrew Kirk; Carl D'Arcy; Norma Stewart; Jay Biem; Dorothy Forbes; Sheri Harder; Jenny Basran; Vanina Dal Bello-Haas; Lesley McBain Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Timothy W Brearly; Robert D Shura; Sarah L Martindale; Rory A Lazowski; David D Luxton; Brian V Shenal; Jared A Rowland Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: Hannah E Wadsworth; Jeanine M Galusha-Glasscock; Kyle B Womack; Mary Quiceno; Myron F Weiner; Linda S Hynan; Jay Shore; C Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Shayne N Ragbeer; Erika F Augustine; Jonathan W Mink; Alyssa R Thatcher; Amy E Vierhile; Heather R Adams Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Mili Parikh; Maria C Grosch; Lara L Graham; Linda S Hynan; Myron Weiner; James H Shore; C Munro Cullum Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 3.535