Alyssa A Gamaldo1,2,3, Shyuan Ching Tan1, Angie L Sardina4, Carolyn Henzi1, Rosalyn Guest1, Lesley A Ross1, Kurtis Willingham5, Alan B Zonderman3, Ross A Andel2. 1. Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. 2. School of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. 3. Behavioral Epidemiology Section, Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute on Aging, NIA/NIH/IRP, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. School of Health and Applied Human Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina. 5. Aging Studies, School of Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine satisfaction, test anxiety, and performance using computer-based cognitive batteries versus a paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery among older Blacks. METHOD: Self-identified Black adults (n = 87, age range: 55-86; mean education = 14) completed two computer-based tests (CogState and Joggle) and a paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery. After each battery, participants reported their testing anxiety and satisfaction using the batteries. Descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses compared satisfaction, anxiety, and performance across the batteries. RESULTS: Majority of the participants reported more satisfaction with the computer-based (Joggle: 66%; CogState: 77%) than the neuropsychological (52%) battery. Participants also reported less testing anxiety after completing the computer-based batteries than the neuropsychological battery, F(2, 172) = 22.96, p < .001. Older adults' familiarity and comfort level with the computer were not associated with their performance on the computer-based tests (p > .05). Although testing anxiety was not associated with performance across the batteries, age and education quality were uniquely associated with performance on the CogState and neuropsychological batteries. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based cognitive batteries appear to be less intimidating than the commonly used paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests for Black adults. Thus, these cognitive batteries may be useful tools for monitoring older Blacks' cognitive status. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America 2018.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine satisfaction, test anxiety, and performance using computer-based cognitive batteries versus a paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery among older Blacks. METHOD: Self-identified Black adults (n = 87, age range: 55-86; mean education = 14) completed two computer-based tests (CogState and Joggle) and a paper-and-pencil neuropsychological battery. After each battery, participants reported their testing anxiety and satisfaction using the batteries. Descriptive, correlational, and regression analyses compared satisfaction, anxiety, and performance across the batteries. RESULTS: Majority of the participants reported more satisfaction with the computer-based (Joggle: 66%; CogState: 77%) than the neuropsychological (52%) battery. Participants also reported less testing anxiety after completing the computer-based batteries than the neuropsychological battery, F(2, 172) = 22.96, p < .001. Older adults' familiarity and comfort level with the computer were not associated with their performance on the computer-based tests (p > .05). Although testing anxiety was not associated with performance across the batteries, age and education quality were uniquely associated with performance on the CogState and neuropsychological batteries. CONCLUSIONS: Computer-based cognitive batteries appear to be less intimidating than the commonly used paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests for Black adults. Thus, these cognitive batteries may be useful tools for monitoring older Blacks' cognitive status. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America 2018.
Authors: Marie-Florence Shadlen; David Siscovick; Annette L Fitzpatrick; Corinne Dulberg; Lewis H Kuller; Sharon Jackson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Russell M Bauer; Grant L Iverson; Alison N Cernich; Laurence M Binder; Ronald M Ruff; Richard I Naugle Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2012-03-07 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Michele K Evans; James M Lepkowski; Neil R Powe; Thomas LaVeist; Marie Fanelli Kuczmarski; Alan B Zonderman Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Elise G Valdes; Nasreen A Sadeq; Aryn L Harrison Bush; David Morgan; Ross Andel Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 2.475