Validation of the tablet-administered Brief Assessment of Cognition (BAC App)
Validation of the tablet-administered Brief Assessment of Cognition (BAC App)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.schres.2016.10.010
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-01
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Keefe, Richard S. E.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Atkins, Alexandra S.;Tseng, Tina;Keefe, Richard S. E.
计算机化考试得益于自动评分程序和标准化的管理说明。这些方法可以减少评分员错误的可能性。然而，特别是在患有严重精神疾病的患者中，不能假设传统和基于平板电脑的测试具有等效性。精神分裂症认知简要评估（BACS）是一种纸笔式认知评估工具，已用于数百项研究和临床试验，并具有可用于生成年龄和性别校正标准化评分的规范性数据。已经开发了一个基于平板电脑的BACS版本，称为BAC应用程序。这项研究比较了精神分裂症患者和健康对照者在BACS和BAC App上的表现。评估了测试等效性，并评价了纸质规范数据的适用性。结果表明，基于平板电脑的BAC App和笔-纸BACS的标准化综合评分的分布难以区分，方法间平均差异无统计学意义。患者和对照组之间的区分同样稳健。对于大多数子测验，患者个体测量的方法间相关性为r = 0.70。当标记运动测试的数据被省略时，健康对照组的综合评分的方法间相关性为r = 0.88（df = 48; p < 0.001），患者组的相关性为r= 0.89（df = 46; p < 0.001），与每个测量的重测信度一致。总之，结果表明，基于平板电脑的BAC App生成的结果与传统的笔和纸BACS一致，并支持BAC App适用于临床试验和临床实践的观点。(C)2016作者由Elsevier B出版。V.这是CC BY-NC-ND许可下的开放获取文章（http：//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/）。
Computerized tests benefit from automated scoring procedures and standardized administration instructions. These methods can reduce the potential for rater error. However, especially in patients with severe mental illnesses, the equivalency of traditional and tablet-based tests cannot be assumed. The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) is a pen-and-paper cognitive assessment tool that has been used in hundreds of research studies and clinical trials, and has normative data available for generating age-and gender-corrected standardized scores. A tablet-based version of the BACS called the BAC App has been developed. This study compared performance on the BACS and the BAC App in patientswith schizophrenia and healthy controls. Test equivalency was assessed, and the applicability of paper-based normative data was evaluated. Results demonstrated the distributions of standardized composite scores for the tablet-based BAC App and the pen-and-paper BACS were indistinguishable, and the between-methods mean differences were not statistically significant. The discrimination between patients and controls was similarly robust. The between-methods correlations for individualmeasures in patients were r = 0.70 formost subtests. When data fromthe Token Motor Testwas omitted, the between-methods correlation of composite scores was r = 0.88 (df = 48; p < 0.001) in healthy controls and r= 0.89 (df = 46; p < 0.001) in patients, consistent with the test-retest reliability of each measure. Taken together, results indicate that the tablet-based BAC App generates results consistent with the traditional pen-and-paper BACS, and support the notion that the BAC App is appropriate for use in clinical trials and clinical practice. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B. V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).