Comparing remote versus in-person assessment of learning skills in children with specific learning disabilities.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-08-14 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241254453
Valentina Lampis, Chiara Dondena, Chiara Mauri, Martina Villa, Antonio Salandi, Massimo Molteni, Chiara Cantiani, Sara Mascheretti
{"title":"Comparing remote <i>versus</i> in-person assessment of learning skills in children with specific learning disabilities.","authors":"Valentina Lampis, Chiara Dondena, Chiara Mauri, Martina Villa, Antonio Salandi, Massimo Molteni, Chiara Cantiani, Sara Mascheretti","doi":"10.1177/20552076241254453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interactive telemedicine applications have been progressively introduced in the assessment of cognitive and literacy skills. However, there is still a lack of research focusing on the validity of this methodology for the neuropsychological assessment of children with Specific Learning Disorder (SLD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seventy-nine children including 40 typically developing children (18 males, age 11.5 ± 1.06) and 39 children with SLD (24 males, age 12.3 ± 1.28) were recruited. Each participant underwent the same neuropsychological battery assessing reading accuracy, speed, and comprehension, writing, numerical processing, computation, and semantic numerical sense, twice (once during an in-person session (I) and once during a remote (R) home-based videoconference session). Four groups were subsequently defined based on the administration order. Repeated-measure-ANOVAs with assessment type (R vs. I testing) as within-subject factor and diagnosis (SLD vs. TR) and administration order (R-I vs. I-R) as between-subject factors, and between-group t-tests comparing the two assessment types within each time of administration, were run.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences emerged between I and R assessments of reading accuracy and speed, numerical processing, and computation; on the contrary, potential biases against R assessment emerged when evaluating skills in writing, reading comprehension, and semantic numerical sense. However, regardless of the assessment type, the scores obtained with I and R assessments within the same administration time point overlapped.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>These results partially support the validity and reliability of the assessment of children's learning skills <i>via</i> a remote home-based videoconferencing system. Implementing telemedicine as an assessment tool may increase timely access to primary health care and to support research activity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11325472/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241254453","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interactive telemedicine applications have been progressively introduced in the assessment of cognitive and literacy skills. However, there is still a lack of research focusing on the validity of this methodology for the neuropsychological assessment of children with Specific Learning Disorder (SLD).

Methods: Seventy-nine children including 40 typically developing children (18 males, age 11.5 ± 1.06) and 39 children with SLD (24 males, age 12.3 ± 1.28) were recruited. Each participant underwent the same neuropsychological battery assessing reading accuracy, speed, and comprehension, writing, numerical processing, computation, and semantic numerical sense, twice (once during an in-person session (I) and once during a remote (R) home-based videoconference session). Four groups were subsequently defined based on the administration order. Repeated-measure-ANOVAs with assessment type (R vs. I testing) as within-subject factor and diagnosis (SLD vs. TR) and administration order (R-I vs. I-R) as between-subject factors, and between-group t-tests comparing the two assessment types within each time of administration, were run.

Results: No differences emerged between I and R assessments of reading accuracy and speed, numerical processing, and computation; on the contrary, potential biases against R assessment emerged when evaluating skills in writing, reading comprehension, and semantic numerical sense. However, regardless of the assessment type, the scores obtained with I and R assessments within the same administration time point overlapped.

Discussion: These results partially support the validity and reliability of the assessment of children's learning skills via a remote home-based videoconferencing system. Implementing telemedicine as an assessment tool may increase timely access to primary health care and to support research activity.

比较对有特殊学习障碍的儿童的学习技能进行远程评估和亲自评估。
背景:交互式远程医疗应用已逐步被引入认知和读写能力的评估中。然而,目前仍缺乏对这种方法在特殊学习障碍(SLD)儿童神经心理学评估中有效性的研究:招募了 79 名儿童,包括 40 名发育典型儿童(18 名男性,年龄为 11.5 ± 1.06)和 39 名患有特殊学习障碍的儿童(24 名男性,年龄为 12.3 ± 1.28)。每位受试者都接受了相同的神经心理学测试,包括阅读准确性、速度和理解能力、写作能力、数字处理能力、计算能力和语义数字感,测试共进行了两次(一次是面对面测试(I),另一次是远程(R)家庭视频会议测试)。随后根据施测顺序确定了四个组别。以评估类型(R 测试与 I 测试)作为受试者内因子,以诊断(SLD 与 TR)和施测顺序(R-I 与 I-R)作为受试者间因子,进行重复测量方差分析,并在每次施测时间内对两种评估类型进行组间 t 检验:结果:在阅读准确性和速度、数字处理和计算方面,I 型和 R 型评估没有出现差异;相反,在评估写作能力、阅读理解能力和语义数字感时,R 型评估出现了潜在的偏差。然而,无论采用哪种评估类型,在同一施测时间点上,I 和 R 评估所获得的分数都是重叠的:这些结果部分证明了通过远程家庭视频会议系统对儿童学习技能进行评估的有效性和可靠性。将远程医疗作为一种评估工具,可增加及时获得初级保健服务的机会,并为研究活动提供支持。
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
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
×
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