OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean+/-standard deviation 18+/-4 minutes vs 26+/-4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91% vs 100%). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean+/-standard deviation 18+/-4 minutes vs 26+/-4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91% vs 100%). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.
Authors: Chip Caine; Snehal Deshmukh; Vinai Gondi; Minesh Mehta; Wolfgang Tomé; Benjamin W Corn; Andrew Kanner; Howard Rowley; Vijayananda Kundapur; Albert DeNittis; Jeffrey Noah Greenspoon; Andre A Konski; Glenn S Bauman; Adam Raben; Wenyin Shi; Merideth Wendland; Lisa Kachnic Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alyssa A Gamaldo; Shyuan Ching Tan; Angie L Sardina; Carolyn Henzi; Rosalyn Guest; Lesley A Ross; Kurtis Willingham; Alan B Zonderman; Ross A Andel Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Farzin Irani; Colleen M Brensinger; Jan Richard; Monica E Calkins; Paul J Moberg; Waren Bilker; Raquel E Gur; Ruben C Gur Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Jeffrey A Katula; Julia Rushing; Arthur F Kramer; Janine M Jennings; Kaycee M Sink; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Kieran F Reid; Cynthia M Castro; Timothy Church; Diana R Kerwin; Jeff D Williamson; Richard A Marottoli; Scott Rushing; Michael Marsiske; Stephen R Rapp Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Alain K Koyama; Kaitlin A Hagan; Olivia I Okereke; Marc G Weisskopf; Bernard Rosner; Francine Grodstein Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 3.282