Timothy W Brearly1,2,3, Jared A Rowland1,3,4,5, Sarah L Martindale1,3,5, Robert D Shura3,5,6, David Curry1, Kathy H Taber1,6,7. 1. Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and Research & Academic Affairs Service Line, Salisbury VA Health Care System, Salisbury, NC, USA. 2. Neuropsychology Assessment Service, Directorate of Behavioral Health (Consultation & Education), Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 5. Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center and Mental Health & Behavioral Sciences Service Line, Salisbury VA Health Care System, Salisbury, NC, USA. 6. Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, VA, USA. 7. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparability of National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery test scores across iPad application and web-based personal computer administration platforms. Original test norms were developed using a personal computer-based administration and no previous studies assessing platform comparability have been published. METHOD: Participants (N = 62; final analyzed sample n = 49) were combat-exposed post-deployment veterans without neurologic disorder, severe mental illness, current substance use disorder, or a history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. All participants completed both iPad and web-based versions of tests on the same day in an experimental within-subjects crossover design. Standalone validity measures were incorporated to exclude invalid performance. Outcome measures included the Dimensional Change Card Sort Test, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, List Sorting Working Memory Test, and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test. RESULTS: Score differences between platforms were found on the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test. Scores were moderately correlated across tests, with the exception of low correlations for the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test. Most participants preferred iPad to web administration, regardless of administration order. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest caution when interpreting iPad-acquired scores, particularly for the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test. iPad-based testing offers valuable improvements; however, the development of iPad-specific norms may be necessary to ensure valid interpretation of acquired data. Published by Oxford University Press 2018.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparability of National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognitive Battery test scores across iPad application and web-based personal computer administration platforms. Original test norms were developed using a personal computer-based administration and no previous studies assessing platform comparability have been published. METHOD: Participants (N = 62; final analyzed sample n = 49) were combat-exposed post-deployment veterans without neurologic disorder, severe mental illness, current substance use disorder, or a history of moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. All participants completed both iPad and web-based versions of tests on the same day in an experimental within-subjects crossover design. Standalone validity measures were incorporated to exclude invalid performance. Outcome measures included the Dimensional Change Card Sort Test, Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test, List Sorting Working Memory Test, and Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test. RESULTS: Score differences between platforms were found on the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test. Scores were moderately correlated across tests, with the exception of low correlations for the Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test. Most participants preferred iPad to web administration, regardless of administration order. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest caution when interpreting iPad-acquired scores, particularly for the Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test. iPad-based testing offers valuable improvements; however, the development of iPad-specific norms may be necessary to ensure valid interpretation of acquired data. Published by Oxford University Press 2018.
Authors: Kaitlin B Casaletto; Anya Umlauf; Jennifer Beaumont; Richard Gershon; Jerry Slotkin; Natacha Akshoomoff; Robert K Heaton Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: David S Tulsky; Noelle E Carlozzi; James Holdnack; Robert K Heaton; Alex Wong; Arielle Goldsmith; Allen W Heinemann Journal: Rehabil Psychol Date: 2017-11
Authors: K B Boone; P Lu; D Sherman; B Palmer; C Back; E Shamieh; K Warner-Chacon; N G Berman Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Robert K Heaton; Natacha Akshoomoff; David Tulsky; Dan Mungas; Sandra Weintraub; Sureyya Dikmen; Jennifer Beaumont; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Kevin Conway; Jerry Slotkin; Richard Gershon Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: James A Holdnack; David S Tulsky; Jerry Slotkin; Callie E Tyner; Richard Gershon; Grant L Iverson; Allen W Heinemann Journal: Rehabil Psychol Date: 2017-11
Authors: Anna L Kratz; Daniel Whibley; Samsuk Kim; Martin Sliwinski; Daniel Clauw; David A Williams Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 4.794