OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity and reliability of a cognitive test battery and questionnaires administered by telephone. DESIGN: Observational study; 110 participants randomly assigned to receive two administrations of the same cognitive test battery 6 months apart in one of four combinations (Time 1 administration/Time 2 administration): telephone/telephone, telephone/face to face, face to face/telephone, face to face/face to face. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ten women aged 65 to 90 without dementia. MEASUREMENTS: The battery included tests of attention; verbal learning and memory; verbal fluency; executive function; working memory; global cognitive functioning; and self-reported measures of perceived memory problems, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance, and health-related quality of life. Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, relative bias associated with telephone administration, and change scores were evaluated. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in scores on any of the cognitive tests or questionnaires between participants randomly assigned to telephone or face-to-face administration at the Time 1 assessment, indicating equivalence across administration modes. There was no significant bias for tests or questionnaires administered by telephone (P's > .01), nor was there a difference in mean change scores between administration modes except for Category Fluency (P = .01) and California Verbal Learning Test long-delay free recall (P = .004). Mean test-retest coefficients for the battery were not significantly different between groups, although individual test-retest correlation coefficients were generally higher within modes than between modes. CONCLUSION:Telephone administration of cognitive tests and questionnaires to older women is reliable and valid. Use of telephone batteries can substantially reduce the cost and burden of cognitive assessments and increase enrollment, retention, and data completeness, thereby improving study validity.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity and reliability of a cognitive test battery and questionnaires administered by telephone. DESIGN: Observational study; 110 participants randomly assigned to receive two administrations of the same cognitive test battery 6 months apart in one of four combinations (Time 1 administration/Time 2 administration): telephone/telephone, telephone/face to face, face to face/telephone, face to face/face to face. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred ten women aged 65 to 90 without dementia. MEASUREMENTS: The battery included tests of attention; verbal learning and memory; verbal fluency; executive function; working memory; global cognitive functioning; and self-reported measures of perceived memory problems, depressive symptoms, sleep disturbance, and health-related quality of life. Test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, relative bias associated with telephone administration, and change scores were evaluated. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in scores on any of the cognitive tests or questionnaires between participants randomly assigned to telephone or face-to-face administration at the Time 1 assessment, indicating equivalence across administration modes. There was no significant bias for tests or questionnaires administered by telephone (P's > .01), nor was there a difference in mean change scores between administration modes except for Category Fluency (P = .01) and California Verbal Learning Test long-delay free recall (P = .004). Mean test-retest coefficients for the battery were not significantly different between groups, although individual test-retest correlation coefficients were generally higher within modes than between modes. CONCLUSION: Telephone administration of cognitive tests and questionnaires to older women is reliable and valid. Use of telephone batteries can substantially reduce the cost and burden of cognitive assessments and increase enrollment, retention, and data completeness, thereby improving study validity.
Authors: Tarja Järvenpää; Juha O Rinne; Ismo Räihä; Markku Koskenvuo; Minna Löppönen; Susanna Hinkka; Jaakko Kaprio Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Douglas W Levine; Daniel F Kripke; Robert M Kaplan; Megan A Lewis; Michelle J Naughton; Deborah J Bowen; Sally A Shumaker Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2003-06
Authors: Robert S Wilson; Laurel A Beckett; Lisa L Barnes; Julie A Schneider; Julie Bach; Denis A Evans; David A Bennett Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2002-06
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Andrzej T Galecki; Kenneth M Langa; Frederick W Unverzagt; Mohammed U Kabeto; Bruno Giordani; Mary Cushman; Leslie A McClure; Monika M Safford; Virginia G Wadley Journal: Hypertension Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Deborah A Levine; Andrzej T Galecki; Kenneth M Langa; Frederick W Unverzagt; Mohammed U Kabeto; Bruno Giordani; Virginia G Wadley Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Walter T Ambrosius; Kaycee M Sink; Capri G Foy; Dan R Berlowitz; Alfred K Cheung; William C Cushman; Lawrence J Fine; David C Goff; Karen C Johnson; Anthony A Killeen; Cora E Lewis; Suzanne Oparil; David M Reboussin; Michael V Rocco; Joni K Snyder; Jeff D Williamson; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Laura B Zahodne; Neika Sharifian; Jennifer J Manly; Jennifer A Sumner; Michael Crowe; Virginia G Wadley; Virginia J Howard; Audrey R Murchland; Willa D Brenowitz; Jennifer Weuve Journal: Psychol Aging Date: 2019-09-30
Authors: Ramon Casanova; Ryan T Barnard; Sarah A Gaussoin; Santiago Saldana; Kathleen M Hayden; JoAnn E Manson; Robert B Wallace; Stephen R Rapp; Susan M Resnick; Mark A Espeland; Jiu-Chiuan Chen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bernhard Haring; Chunyuan Wu; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Linda Snetselaar; Robert Brunner; Robert B Wallace; Marian L Neuhouser; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Melinda C Power; Susan Korrick; Eric J Tchetgen Tchetgen; Linda H Nie; Francine Grodstein; Howard Hu; Jennifer Weuve; Joel Schwartz; Marc G Weisskopf Journal: Environ Res Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Lydia Bunker; Tammy T Hshieh; Bonnie Wong; Eva M Schmitt; Thomas Travison; Jacqueline Yee; Kerry Palihnich; Eran Metzger; Tamara G Fong; Sharon K Inouye Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 3.485