Curtis M Wojcik1, Meghan Beier2, Kathleen Costello3, John DeLuca4, Anthony Feinstein5, Yael Goverover6, Mark Gudesblatt7, Michael Jaworski1, Rosalind Kalb3, Lori Kostich8, Nicholas G LaRocca3, Jonathan D Rodgers9, Ralph Hb Benedict10. 1. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA. 2. Division of Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Department of Neurology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. New York University, New York, NY, USA/South Shore Neurologic Associates, New York, NY, USA. 7. South Shore Neurologic Associates Islip, NY. 8. The Mandell MS Center, Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA. 9. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA/Jacobs Neurological Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA/Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, USA. 10. Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA/Jacobs Neurological Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The proliferation of computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs) for screening and monitoring cognitive impairment is increasing exponentially. Previous reviews of computerized tests for multiple sclerosis (MS) were primarily qualitative and did not rigorously compare CNADs on psychometric properties. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the literature on the use of CNADs in MS and identify test batteries and single tests with good evidence for reliability and validity. METHOD: A search of four major online databases was conducted for publications related to computerized testing and MS. Test-retest reliability and validity coefficients and effect sizes were recorded for each CNAD test, along with administration characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 11 batteries and 33 individual tests from 120 peer-reviewed articles meeting the inclusion criteria. CNADs with the strongest psychometric support include the CogState Brief Battery, Cognitive Drug Research Battery, NeuroTrax, CNS-Vital Signs, and computer-based administrations of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. CONCLUSION: We identified several CNADs that are valid to screen for MS-related cognitive impairment, or to supplement full, conventional neuropsychological assessment. The necessity of testing with a technician, and in a controlled clinic/laboratory environment, remains uncertain.
BACKGROUND: The proliferation of computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs) for screening and monitoring cognitive impairment is increasing exponentially. Previous reviews of computerized tests for multiple sclerosis (MS) were primarily qualitative and did not rigorously compare CNADs on psychometric properties. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the literature on the use of CNADs in MS and identify test batteries and single tests with good evidence for reliability and validity. METHOD: A search of four major online databases was conducted for publications related to computerized testing and MS. Test-retest reliability and validity coefficients and effect sizes were recorded for each CNAD test, along with administration characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 11 batteries and 33 individual tests from 120 peer-reviewed articles meeting the inclusion criteria. CNADs with the strongest psychometric support include the CogState Brief Battery, Cognitive Drug Research Battery, NeuroTrax, CNS-Vital Signs, and computer-based administrations of the Symbol Digit Modalities Test. CONCLUSION: We identified several CNADs that are valid to screen for MS-related cognitive impairment, or to supplement full, conventional neuropsychological assessment. The necessity of testing with a technician, and in a controlled clinic/laboratory environment, remains uncertain.
Authors: David M Erlanger; Tanya Kaushik; Lauren S Caruso; Ralph H B Benedict; F W Foley; Jeffrey Wilken; Diego Cadavid; John Deluca Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Sarah A Morrow; Allison Drake; Robert Zivadinov; Frederick Munschauer; Bianca Weinstock-Guttman; Ralph H B Benedict Journal: Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2010-09-08 Impact factor: 3.535
Authors: Lisa B Grech; Litza A Kiropoulos; Katherine M Kirby; Ernest Butler; Mark Paine; Robert Hester Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Nicholas G LaRocca; Lynn D Hudson; Richard Rudick; Dagmar Amtmann; Laura Balcer; Ralph Benedict; Robert Bermel; Ih Chang; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; Peter Chin; Jeffrey A Cohen; Gary R Cutter; Mat D Davis; John DeLuca; Peter Feys; Gordon Francis; Myla D Goldman; Emily Hartley; Raj Kapoor; Fred Lublin; Gary Lundstrom; Paul M Matthews; Nancy Mayo; Richard Meibach; Deborah M Miller; Robert W Motl; Ellen M Mowry; Rob Naismith; Jon Neville; Jennifer Panagoulias; Michael Panzara; Glenn Phillips; Ann Robbins; Matthew F Sidovar; Kathryn E Smith; Bjorn Sperling; Bernard Mj Uitdehaag; Jerry Weaver Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 6.312