You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Gerontology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1159/000433432 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lorraine Scanlon, Emma O'Shea, Rónán O'Caoimh, Suzanne Timmons |
| Abstract |
Computerised cognitive screening (CCS) has the potential to detect cognitive impairment in the community, which is important for the early diagnosis of dementia. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of older adults with dementia to engage with smart phone and tablet technologies and to determine the accuracy of a battery of CCS tasks to detect cognitive impairment in comparison with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Patients with mild-moderate dementia (n = 40) attending a university-linked day hospital and normal controls (n = 20) completed (i) a questionnaire detailing the frequency and breadth of their technology use, (ii) three commercially available CCS tasks, and (iii) the MoCA. The three CCS tasks were completed by 85% (n = 34) of the patients with dementia and all controls; only 4 reported the task as 'hard'. Those with dementia scored significantly lower on the CCS than controls (p < 0.001). CCS scores correlated with total MoCA scores (r = 0.78, p < 0.01). Further, the CCS scores significantly predicted MoCA scores, controlling for the effects of age, gender, educational attainment, and frequency of technology use (β = 0.71, p < 0.001), explaining 65.2% of the variance. Total CCS and MoCA scores (cut-off score <24) had similar sensitivity (94 and 95%, respectively) and accuracy (area under the curve 0.94 and 0.99, respectively, p = 0.5) in discriminating dementia from controls, though the CSS had lower specificity (60 vs. 100% for the MoCA). The participants had little difficulty self-administering the CCS, which is an oft-cited barrier to computerised testing in this population. Our results support the criterion and construct validity of a CCS versus the commonly used MoCA. Although further research is required, CCS for cognitive impairment may be useful in the community and, by prompting referral to specialist services, could lead to an earlier diagnosis of dementia. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 19% |
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 17% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,345,593
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Gerontology
#764
of 1,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,196
of 263,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gerontology
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.