Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB)

IF 2.2 3区心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES

Brain and Cognition Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.1016/j.bandc.2023.106117

Akira Di Sandro , Tyler M. Moore , Eirini Zoupou , Kelly P. Kennedy , Katherine C. Lopez , Kosha Ruparel , Lucky J. Njokweni , Sage Rush , Tarlan Daryoush , Olivia Franco , Alesandra Gorgone , Andrew Savino , Paige Didier , Daniel H. Wolf , Monica E. Calkins , J. Cobb Scott , Raquel E. Gur , Ruben C. Gur

{"title":"Validation of the cognitive section of the Penn computerized adaptive test for neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment (CAT-CCNB)","authors":"Akira Di Sandro , Tyler M. Moore , Eirini Zoupou , Kelly P. Kennedy , Katherine C. Lopez , Kosha Ruparel , Lucky J. Njokweni , Sage Rush , Tarlan Daryoush , Olivia Franco , Alesandra Gorgone , Andrew Savino , Paige Didier , Daniel H. Wolf , Monica E. Calkins , J. Cobb Scott , Raquel E. Gur , Ruben C. Gur","doi":"10.1016/j.bandc.2023.106117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery is an efficient tool for assessing brain-behavior domains, and its efficiency was augmented via computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This battery requires validation in a separate sample to establish psychometric properties.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>In a mixed community/clinical sample of N = 307 18-to-35-year-olds, we tested the relationships of the CAT tests with the full-form tests. We compared discriminability among recruitment groups (psychosis, mood, control) and examined how their scores relate to demographics. CAT-Full relationships were evaluated based on a minimum inter-test correlation of 0.70 <em>or</em> an inter-test correlation within at least 0.10 of the full-form correlation with a previous administration of the full battery. Differences in criterion relationships were tested via mixed models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Most tests (15/17) met the minimum criteria for replacing the full-form with the updated CAT version (mean r = 0.67; range = 0.53–0.80) when compared to relationships of the full-forms with previous administrations of the full-forms (mean r = 0.68; range = 0.50–0.85). Most (16/17) CAT-based relationships with diagnostics and other validity criteria were indistinguishable (interaction p > 0.05) from their full-form counterparts.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The updated CNB shows psychometric properties acceptable for research. The full-forms of some tests should be retained due to insufficient time savings to justify the loss in precision.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55331,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262623001768","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery is an efficient tool for assessing brain-behavior domains, and its efficiency was augmented via computerized adaptive testing (CAT). This battery requires validation in a separate sample to establish psychometric properties.

Methods

In a mixed community/clinical sample of N = 307 18-to-35-year-olds, we tested the relationships of the CAT tests with the full-form tests. We compared discriminability among recruitment groups (psychosis, mood, control) and examined how their scores relate to demographics. CAT-Full relationships were evaluated based on a minimum inter-test correlation of 0.70 or an inter-test correlation within at least 0.10 of the full-form correlation with a previous administration of the full battery. Differences in criterion relationships were tested via mixed models.

Results

Most tests (15/17) met the minimum criteria for replacing the full-form with the updated CAT version (mean r = 0.67; range = 0.53–0.80) when compared to relationships of the full-forms with previous administrations of the full-forms (mean r = 0.68; range = 0.50–0.85). Most (16/17) CAT-based relationships with diagnostics and other validity criteria were indistinguishable (interaction p > 0.05) from their full-form counterparts.

Conclusions

The updated CNB shows psychometric properties acceptable for research. The full-forms of some tests should be retained due to insufficient time savings to justify the loss in precision.

查看原文本刊更多论文

宾夕法尼亚大学神经认知和临床心理病理学评估计算机适应性测试（CAT-CNB）认知部分的验证

背景宾大计算机化神经认知测验是评估大脑行为领域的有效工具，通过计算机化自适应测验（CAT）提高了其效率。我们在一个由 307 名 18-35 岁青少年组成的社区/临床混合样本中测试了 CAT 测试与全形式测试之间的关系。我们比较了招募组（精神病组、情绪组、控制组）之间的可区分性，并研究了它们的得分与人口统计学的关系。CAT与全形测验之间关系的评估标准是：测验间相关性至少达到0.70，或者测验间相关性与全形测验相关性至少在0.10以内。结果大多数测试（15/17）都达到了用更新版 CAT 取代全表的最低标准（平均 r = 0.67；范围 = 0.53-0.80），而全表与之前使用的全表之间的关系（平均 r = 0.68；范围 = 0.50-0.85）则有所不同。大多数（16/17）基于 CAT 的测验与诊断和其他效度标准之间的关系与全表无异（交互作用 p > 0.05）。结论更新后的 CNB 具有可用于研究的心理测量学特性，但由于所节省的时间不足以证明所损失的精确度是合理的，因此应保留某些测试的完整形式。

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

Brain and Cognition 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Brain and Cognition is a forum for the integration of the neurosciences and cognitive sciences. B&C publishes peer-reviewed research articles, theoretical papers, case histories that address important theoretical issues, and historical articles into the interaction between cognitive function and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in cognition. Coverage includes, but is not limited to memory, learning, emotion, perception, movement, music or praxis in relationship to brain structure or function. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of cognitive function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import, formulating new hypotheses or refuting previously established hypotheses. Clinical papers are welcome if they raise issues of theoretical importance or concern and shed light on the interaction between brain function and cognitive function. We welcome review articles that clearly contribute a new perspective or integration, beyond summarizing the literature in the field; authors of review articles should make explicit where the contribution lies. We also welcome proposals for special issues on aspects of the relation between cognition and the structure and function of the nervous system. Such proposals can be made directly to the Editor-in-Chief from individuals interested in being guest editors for such collections.