Reliability and validity of a self-administered tool for online neuropsychological testing: The Amsterdam Cognition Scan
Reliability and validity of a self-administered tool for online neuropsychological testing: The Amsterdam Cognition Scan
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13803395.2017.1339017
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Schagen, Sanne B.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feenstra, Heleen E. M.;Murre, Jaap M. J.;Schagen, Sanne B.
为了促进临床研究中各种认知能力的大规模评估，我们开发了一种自我管理的在线神经心理测试电池：阿姆斯特丹认知扫描（ACS）。目前的研究评估了一组成年癌症患者：ACS的重测信度和测试环境（家庭或医院）的影响，以及我们的在线和传统测试组之间的关系（并发效度）。方法：对96例完成两次ACS的癌症患者（女性57例，M-age= 51.8岁）进行重测信度研究。类内相关系数（ICCs）用于评估随时间的一致性。测试设置在家庭和医院之间平衡；通过重复测量方差分析评估对测试性能的影响。同时效度研究了201名癌症患者（112名女性，m -年龄= 53.5岁），他们完成了在线和等效的传统神经心理学测试。使用Spearman或Pearson相关性来评估在线测试和传统测试之间的一致性。结果：在线测试的icc范围从。29 . to。76， ICC值为。ACS总分78分。这些相关性通常可与文献中报道的传统测试的重测相关性相比较。将在线测试和传统测试成绩相关联，我们观察到中到大的并发效度（r/= 0.42至0.70；总分r= 0.78），除了视觉空间记忆测试（= 0.36）。正如预期的那样，相关性受到在线测试和离线测试之间设计差异的影响。结论：虽然ACS的开发和优化是一个持续的过程，并且可靠性可以优化几个测试，我们的结果表明，它是一个高度可用的工具，获得（在线）各种认知能力的测量。在不久的将来，ACS有望促进有效收集有关认知功能的数据。
Introduction: To facilitate large-scale assessment of a variety of cognitive abilities in clinical studies, we developed a self-administered online neuropsychological test battery: the Amsterdam Cognition Scan (ACS). The current studies evaluate in a group of adult cancer patients: test-retest reliability of the ACS and the influence of test setting (home or hospital), and the relationship between our online and a traditional test battery (concurrent validity). Method: Test-retest reliability was studied in 96 cancer patients (57 female; M-age= 51.8years) who completed the ACS twice. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess consistency over time. The test setting was counterbalanced between home and hospital; influence on test performance was assessed by repeated measures analyses of variance. Concurrent validity was studied in 201 cancer patients (112 female; M-age= 53.5years) who completed both the online and an equivalent traditional neuropsychological test battery. Spearman or Pearson correlations were used to assess consistency between online and traditional tests. Results: ICCs of the online tests ranged from .29 to .76, with an ICC of .78 for the ACS total score. These correlations are generally comparable with the test-retest correlations of the traditional tests as reported in the literature. Correlating online and traditional test scores, we observed medium to large concurrent validity (r/=.42 to .70; total score r=.78), except for a visuospatial memory test (=.36). Correlations were affectedas expectedby design differences between online tests and their offline counterparts. Conclusions: Although development and optimization of the ACS is an ongoing process, and reliability can be optimized for several tests, our results indicate that it is a highly usable tool to obtain (online) measures of various cognitive abilities. The ACS is expected to facilitate efficient gathering of data on cognitive functioning in the near future.