Portable Touchscreen Assessment of Motor Skill: A Registered Report of the Reliability and Validity of EDNA MoTap.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Assessment Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-29 DOI:10.1177/10731911241266306
Thomas B McGuckian, Jade Laracas, Nadine Roseboom, Sophie Eichler, Szymon Kardas, Stefan Piantella, Michael H Cole, Ross Eldridge, Jonathan Duckworth, Bert Steenbergen, Dido Green, Peter H Wilson
{"title":"Portable Touchscreen Assessment of Motor Skill: A Registered Report of the Reliability and Validity of EDNA MoTap.","authors":"Thomas B McGuckian, Jade Laracas, Nadine Roseboom, Sophie Eichler, Szymon Kardas, Stefan Piantella, Michael H Cole, Ross Eldridge, Jonathan Duckworth, Bert Steenbergen, Dido Green, Peter H Wilson","doi":"10.1177/10731911241266306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Portable and flexible administration of manual dexterity assessments is necessary to monitor recovery from brain injury and the effects of interventions across clinic and home settings, especially when in-person testing is not possible or convenient. This paper aims to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a new suite of touchscreen-based manual dexterity tests (called <i>EDNA</i>™<i>MoTap</i>) that are designed for portable and efficient administration. A minimum sample of 49 healthy young adults will be conveniently recruited. The <i>EDNA</i>™<i>MoTap</i> tasks will be assessed for concurrent validity against standardized tools (the Box and Block Test [BBT] and the Purdue Pegboard Test) and for test-retest reliability over a 1- to 2-week interval. Correlation coefficients of <i>r</i> > .6 will indicate acceptable validity, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values > .75 will indicate acceptable reliability for healthy adults. The sample were primarily right-handed (91%) adults aged 19 and 34 years (<i>M</i> = 24.93, <i>SD</i> = 4.21, 50% female). The <i>MoTap</i> tasks did not demonstrate acceptable validity, with tasks showing weak-to-moderate associations with the criterion assessments. Some outcomes demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability; however, this was not consistent. Touchscreen-based assessments of dexterity remain relevant; however, there is a need for further development of the <i>EDNA</i>™<i>MoTap</i> task administration.</p>","PeriodicalId":8577,"journal":{"name":"Assessment","volume":" ","pages":"269-282"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874617/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911241266306","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Portable and flexible administration of manual dexterity assessments is necessary to monitor recovery from brain injury and the effects of interventions across clinic and home settings, especially when in-person testing is not possible or convenient. This paper aims to assess the concurrent validity and test-retest reliability of a new suite of touchscreen-based manual dexterity tests (called EDNAMoTap) that are designed for portable and efficient administration. A minimum sample of 49 healthy young adults will be conveniently recruited. The EDNAMoTap tasks will be assessed for concurrent validity against standardized tools (the Box and Block Test [BBT] and the Purdue Pegboard Test) and for test-retest reliability over a 1- to 2-week interval. Correlation coefficients of r > .6 will indicate acceptable validity, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values > .75 will indicate acceptable reliability for healthy adults. The sample were primarily right-handed (91%) adults aged 19 and 34 years (M = 24.93, SD = 4.21, 50% female). The MoTap tasks did not demonstrate acceptable validity, with tasks showing weak-to-moderate associations with the criterion assessments. Some outcomes demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability; however, this was not consistent. Touchscreen-based assessments of dexterity remain relevant; however, there is a need for further development of the EDNAMoTap task administration.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

便携式触摸屏运动技能评估:关于 EDNA MoTap 可靠性和有效性的注册报告。
为了监测脑损伤的恢复情况以及干预措施在诊所和家庭环境中的效果,尤其是在不可能或不方便进行面对面测试的情况下,便携而灵活地进行手部灵活性评估是非常必要的。本文旨在评估一套新的基于触摸屏的手部灵活性测试(名为 EDNA™MoTap)的并发效度和重复测试可靠性,该测试设计用于便携式高效施测。我们将方便地招募至少 49 名健康的年轻人作为样本。EDNA™MoTap 任务将与标准化工具(方框和积木测试 [BBT] 和普渡大学棋盘测试)进行同步有效性评估,并在 1 到 2 周的间隔时间内进行重测可靠性评估。相关系数 r > .6 表示有效性可以接受,类内相关系数 (ICC) > .75 表示可靠性可以接受。样本主要为右撇子(91%)成年人,年龄在 19 岁至 34 岁之间(M = 24.93,SD = 4.21,50% 为女性)。MoTap任务未显示出可接受的有效性,任务与标准评估的关联性较弱至中等。一些结果显示出可接受的测试-再测试可靠性;但是,这种可靠性并不一致。基于触摸屏的灵巧性评估仍然具有相关性;但是,有必要进一步开发 EDNA™MoTap 任务管理。
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
Assessment
Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
期刊介绍: Assessment publishes articles in the domain of applied clinical assessment. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信