Reliability and validity of the CogState computerized battery in patients with seizure disorders and healthy young adults: comparison with standard neuropsychological tests

Sara Fratti, S. Bowden, M. Cook
{"title":"Reliability and validity of the CogState computerized battery in patients with seizure disorders and healthy young adults: comparison with standard neuropsychological tests","authors":"Sara Fratti, S. Bowden, M. Cook","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2016.1256435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective: The aim was to examine the reliability and validity of two measures of learning and memory within the CogState Computerized Battery: the One Card Learning (OCL) and the Continuous Paired Associative Learning (CPAL). Comparison of various reliable change measures was also included to examine rate of correct cognitive change classification, in particular, when using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD). Method: The OCL and the CPAL tests were administered twice and compared to standard and experimental versions of conventional neuropsychological tests in patients with seizure disorders (Baseline n = 80, Follow-up = 54) and university students (Baseline n = 89, Follow-up n = 87). Calculations of Reliable Change Indices (RCIs) on individual performance were obtained to detect reliable change across time using published CogState and current study parameters. Results: Results showed low retest reliabilities in both OCL and CPAL tests (r’s = .49–.77). Small to medium convergent validity correlations with traditional tests of learning and working memory were also found. Discrepancies in RCIs methods on performance estimation were observed when different test parameters and reliabilities were used. In contrast to recent recommendations by publishers of the CogState tests, the WSD method was found to substantially increase the rate of Type-I error when tests reliabilities were low. Conclusions: Unsatisfactory reliability and validity estimates suggest caution regarding the CogState computerized measures of learning and memory as opposed to conventional tests. Caution should be used when interpreting OCL and CPAL test scores, as confidence intervals may be wide and encompass much of the population range. In line with previous recommendations, use of the WSD to detect change in performance over time should be avoided in neuropsychological testing, as this change measure is prone to elevated misclassification rates compared to other methods. Further independent research is needed to improve the psychometrics of CogState OCL and CPAL measures.","PeriodicalId":197334,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1256435","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Abstract Objective: The aim was to examine the reliability and validity of two measures of learning and memory within the CogState Computerized Battery: the One Card Learning (OCL) and the Continuous Paired Associative Learning (CPAL). Comparison of various reliable change measures was also included to examine rate of correct cognitive change classification, in particular, when using the Within-Subject Standard Deviation (WSD). Method: The OCL and the CPAL tests were administered twice and compared to standard and experimental versions of conventional neuropsychological tests in patients with seizure disorders (Baseline n = 80, Follow-up = 54) and university students (Baseline n = 89, Follow-up n = 87). Calculations of Reliable Change Indices (RCIs) on individual performance were obtained to detect reliable change across time using published CogState and current study parameters. Results: Results showed low retest reliabilities in both OCL and CPAL tests (r’s = .49–.77). Small to medium convergent validity correlations with traditional tests of learning and working memory were also found. Discrepancies in RCIs methods on performance estimation were observed when different test parameters and reliabilities were used. In contrast to recent recommendations by publishers of the CogState tests, the WSD method was found to substantially increase the rate of Type-I error when tests reliabilities were low. Conclusions: Unsatisfactory reliability and validity estimates suggest caution regarding the CogState computerized measures of learning and memory as opposed to conventional tests. Caution should be used when interpreting OCL and CPAL test scores, as confidence intervals may be wide and encompass much of the population range. In line with previous recommendations, use of the WSD to detect change in performance over time should be avoided in neuropsychological testing, as this change measure is prone to elevated misclassification rates compared to other methods. Further independent research is needed to improve the psychometrics of CogState OCL and CPAL measures.
CogState计算机电池在癫痫患者和健康年轻人中的可靠性和有效性:与标准神经心理学测试的比较
摘要目的:目的是检验CogState计算机电池中两种学习和记忆测量方法的信度和效度:一张卡学习(OCL)和连续配对联想学习(CPAL)。还包括各种可靠的变化测量的比较,以检查正确的认知变化分类率,特别是当使用受试者内标准偏差(WSD)时。方法:对癫痫患者(基线n = 80,随访n = 54)和大学生(基线n = 89,随访n = 87)进行两次OCL和CPAL测试,并与常规神经心理测试的标准版本和实验版本进行比较。使用已发布的CogState和当前研究参数,获得个人表现的可靠变化指数(rci)计算,以检测可靠的时间变化。结果:OCL和CPAL试验的重测信度均较低(r = 0.49 ~ 0.77)。在传统的学习和工作记忆测试中也发现了小到中等的收敛效度相关。使用不同的测试参数和信度时,rci方法在性能估计上存在差异。与CogState测试发布者最近的建议相反,当测试可靠性较低时,发现WSD方法大大增加了i型错误率。结论:不令人满意的信度和效度估计表明,与传统测试相比,对CogState计算机化的学习和记忆测量要谨慎。在解释OCL和CPAL测试分数时应谨慎使用,因为置信区间可能很宽,并且包含大部分人口范围。根据先前的建议,在神经心理测试中应避免使用WSD来检测表现随时间的变化,因为与其他方法相比,这种变化测量方法容易增加错误分类率。需要进一步的独立研究来改进CogState OCL和CPAL测量的心理测量学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信