Naomi S Chaytor1, Celestina Barbosa-Leiker2, Laura T Germine3,4, Luciana Mascarenhas Fonseca1, Sterling M McPherson1,5,6, Katherine R Tuttle5,6. 1. WSU Health Sciences Spokane, Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 2. College of Nursing, Washington State University, Spokane, WA, USA. 3. Institute for Technology in Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA. 4. Psychiatry Department, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 6. Providence Health Care, Spokane, WA, USA.
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this project was to explore the initial psychometric properties (construct and ecological validity) of self-administered online (SAO) neuropsychological assessment (using the www.testmybrain.org platform), compared to traditional testing, in a clinical sample, as well as to evaluate participant acceptance. SAO assessment has the potential to expand the reach of in-person neuropsychological assessment approaches.Method: Counterbalanced, within-subjects design comparing SAO performance to in-person performance in adults with diabetes with and without Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Forty-nine participants completed both assessment modalities (type 1 diabetes N = 14, type 2 diabetes N = 35; CKD N = 18). Results: Associations between SAO and analogous in-person tests were adequate to good (r = 0.49-0.66). Association strength between divergent cognitive tests did not differ between SAO versus in-person tests. SAO testing was more strongly associated with age than in-person testing (age R2=0.54 versus 0.23), while prediction of education, HbA1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) did not differ significantly between test modalities (education R2=0.37 versus 0.30; HbA1c R2=0.20 versus 0.12; eGFR R2 = 0.41 versus 0.33). Associations with measures of everyday functioning were also similar (Functional Activities Questionnaire R2=0.08 versus 0.07; Neuro-QoL R2=0.14 versus 0.16; Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire R2=0.19 versus 0.19).Conclusions: The selected SAO neuropsychological tests had acceptable construct validity (including divergent, convergent, and criterion-related validity), and similar ecological validity to that of traditional testing. These SAO assessments were acceptable to participants and appear appropriate for use in research applications, although further research is needed to better understand the strengths and weaknesses in other clinical populations.
Objective: The goal of this project was to explore the initial psychometric properties (construct and ecological validity) of self-administered online (SAO) neuropsychological assessment (using the www.testmybrain.org platform), compared to traditional testing, in a clinical sample, as well as to evaluate participant acceptance. SAO assessment has the potential to expand the reach of in-person neuropsychological assessment approaches.Method: Counterbalanced, within-subjects design comparing SAO performance to in-person performance in adults with diabetes with and without Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Forty-nine participants completed both assessment modalities (type 1 diabetes N = 14, type 2 diabetes N = 35; CKD N = 18). Results: Associations between SAO and analogous in-person tests were adequate to good (r = 0.49-0.66). Association strength between divergent cognitive tests did not differ between SAO versus in-person tests. SAO testing was more strongly associated with age than in-person testing (age R2=0.54 versus 0.23), while prediction of education, HbA1c, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) did not differ significantly between test modalities (education R2=0.37 versus 0.30; HbA1c R2=0.20 versus 0.12; eGFR R2 = 0.41 versus 0.33). Associations with measures of everyday functioning were also similar (Functional Activities Questionnaire R2=0.08 versus 0.07; Neuro-QoL R2=0.14 versus 0.16; Diabetes Self-Management Questionnaire R2=0.19 versus 0.19).Conclusions: The selected SAO neuropsychological tests had acceptable construct validity (including divergent, convergent, and criterion-related validity), and similar ecological validity to that of traditional testing. These SAO assessments were acceptable to participants and appear appropriate for use in research applications, although further research is needed to better understand the strengths and weaknesses in other clinical populations.
Authors: Timothy W Brearly; Robert D Shura; Sarah L Martindale; Rory A Lazowski; David D Luxton; Brian V Shenal; Jared A Rowland Journal: Neuropsychol Rev Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 7.444
Authors: Hannah E Wadsworth; Jeanine M Galusha-Glasscock; Kyle B Womack; Mary Quiceno; Myron F Weiner; Linda S Hynan; Jay Shore; C Munro Cullum Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Kristine Yaffe; Cherie Falvey; Nathan Hamilton; Ann V Schwartz; Eleanor M Simonsick; Suzanne Satterfield; Jane A Cauley; Caterina Rosano; Lenore J Launer; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Tamara B Harris Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2012-09
Authors: Shifali Singh; Roger W Strong; Laneé Jung; Frances Haofei Li; Liz Grinspoon; Luke S Scheuer; Eliza J Passell; Paolo Martini; Naomi Chaytor; Jason R Soble; Laura Germine Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 2.475