↓ Skip to main content

Usability and Validity of a Battery of Computerised Cognitive Screening Tests for Detecting Cognitive Impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Gerontology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
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.
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 19%
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Other 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Computer Science 7 9%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 15 19%

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
#7,868,960
of 12,541,584 outputs
Outputs from Gerontology
#455
of 583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,133
of 238,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gerontology
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,541,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 238,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.