Literature DB >> 17688134

Nonequivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil versions of Trail Making Test.

Claire Enea Drapeau1, Mireille Bastien-Toniazzo, Cecile Rous, Michele Carlier.   

Abstract

A computerized version of the Trail Making Test, an adaptation of the classical paper-and-pencil form, was compared with the paper-and-pencil form. The testee must connect targets on the screen with the cursor using the mouse instead of a sheet of paper and a pen. The participants were 68 healthy adolescents and young adults. The comparison of scores on the two versions showed that they cannot be considered equivalent; the difference between the two parts of the test (Parts A and B) was greater in the paper-and-pencil version; correlations between the two versions of Part A and of Part B were significant, but too low to consider the two versions parallel. Both versions were accepted by participants. As expected, mean scores were different in Parts A and B in both versions and magnitude of differences was large.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17688134     DOI: 10.2466/pms.104.3.785-791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Mot Skills        ISSN: 0031-5125


  4 in total

1.  Assessing executive function using a computer game: computational modeling of cognitive processes.

Authors:  Stuart Hagler; Holly Brugge Jimison; Misha Pavel
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 5.772

2.  Naturalistic smartphone keyboard typing reflects processing speed and executive function.

Authors:  Mindy K Ross; Alexander P Demos; John Zulueta; Andrea Piscitello; Scott A Langenecker; Melvin McInnis; Olusola Ajilore; Peter C Nelson; Kelly A Ryan; Alex Leow
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2021-10-06       Impact factor: 2.708

3.  Digitization of neuropsychological diagnostics: a pilot study to compare three paper-based and digitized cognitive assessments.

Authors:  Antje Latendorf; Lina Marie Runde; Tiina Salminen; Anika Steinert
Journal:  Aging Clin Exp Res       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 3.636

4.  An eye-tracking version of the trail-making test.

Authors:  Stephen L Hicks; Rakesh Sharma; Amad N Khan; Claire M Berna; Andrea Waldecker; Kevin Talbot; Chris Kennard; Martin R Turner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-12-18       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.