A psychometric comparison of automated neuropsychological assessment metrics with laptop and tablet administration.

IF 2.1
Jacques Arrieux, Brian Ivins, M Victoria Ingram, Stephanie Sloley
{"title":"A psychometric comparison of automated neuropsychological assessment metrics with laptop and tablet administration.","authors":"Jacques Arrieux, Brian Ivins, M Victoria Ingram, Stephanie Sloley","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acag031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Determine whether Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics administered with laptop and tablet platforms produces comparable scores. The study quantified the direction and magnitude of differences using a clinically relevant analytical approach.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Randomized, within-subjects, counterbalanced, repeated-measures study with 302 active-duty service members. Participants completed the 10-subtest battery in two consecutive sessions (Tablet-Laptop, Laptop-Tablet, Tablet-Tablet, and Laptop-Laptop). Analyses included between-group comparisons, within-subject change, and Reliable Change Index base rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Laptop scores were significantly higher than tablet scores on 9 of 10 subtests, with effect sizes from d = 0.11 to 1.15. Within-subjects analyses indicated a consistent pattern of performance declines in the Laptop-Tablet Group and improvements in the Tablet-Laptop Group. Reliable Change Index base rates showed that 73% of participants in the Laptop-Tablet Group reliably declined on ≥2 subtests versus 10% in the Tablet-Laptop Group. After correcting tablet controller timing artifacts, effects on fast reaction time (RT) tasks were substantially attenuated, while effects on learning-, memory-, and accuracy-based subtests remained significant with large effect sizes. The Laptop-Tablet Group decline rate decreased from 73% to 57% but remained 4 times the same-platform reference rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tablet and laptop scores may not be interchangeable. Hardware timing corrections attenuated effects on fast RT subtests but did not reduce effects on accuracy-based measures, indicating factors beyond RT measurement error contribute to cross-platform differences. Interpreting tablet-based administration with laptop-based normative data or baselines could misclassify examinees. Until validated tablet-specific interpretive criteria are established, cross-platform comparisons should be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":520564,"journal":{"name":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","volume":"41 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acag031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Determine whether Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics administered with laptop and tablet platforms produces comparable scores. The study quantified the direction and magnitude of differences using a clinically relevant analytical approach.

Method: Randomized, within-subjects, counterbalanced, repeated-measures study with 302 active-duty service members. Participants completed the 10-subtest battery in two consecutive sessions (Tablet-Laptop, Laptop-Tablet, Tablet-Tablet, and Laptop-Laptop). Analyses included between-group comparisons, within-subject change, and Reliable Change Index base rates.

Results: Laptop scores were significantly higher than tablet scores on 9 of 10 subtests, with effect sizes from d = 0.11 to 1.15. Within-subjects analyses indicated a consistent pattern of performance declines in the Laptop-Tablet Group and improvements in the Tablet-Laptop Group. Reliable Change Index base rates showed that 73% of participants in the Laptop-Tablet Group reliably declined on ≥2 subtests versus 10% in the Tablet-Laptop Group. After correcting tablet controller timing artifacts, effects on fast reaction time (RT) tasks were substantially attenuated, while effects on learning-, memory-, and accuracy-based subtests remained significant with large effect sizes. The Laptop-Tablet Group decline rate decreased from 73% to 57% but remained 4 times the same-platform reference rate.

Conclusion: Tablet and laptop scores may not be interchangeable. Hardware timing corrections attenuated effects on fast RT subtests but did not reduce effects on accuracy-based measures, indicating factors beyond RT measurement error contribute to cross-platform differences. Interpreting tablet-based administration with laptop-based normative data or baselines could misclassify examinees. Until validated tablet-specific interpretive criteria are established, cross-platform comparisons should be avoided.

自动神经心理评估指标与笔记本电脑和平板电脑管理的心理测量比较。
目的:确定在笔记本电脑和平板电脑平台上使用的自动神经心理评估指标是否产生可比较的分数。该研究使用临床相关的分析方法量化了差异的方向和大小。方法:对302名现役军人进行随机、受试者内、平衡、重复测量研究。参与者在连续的两个阶段(平板电脑-笔记本电脑、笔记本电脑-平板电脑、平板电脑-平板电脑和笔记本电脑-笔记本电脑)中完成了10个子测试电池。分析包括组间比较、受试者内变化和可靠变化指数基准率。结果:笔记本电脑得分显著高于平板电脑得分,在10个子测试中的9个,效应量为d = 0.11 ~ 1.15。研究对象内部分析表明,笔记本电脑-平板电脑组表现下降,平板电脑-笔记本电脑组表现提高。可靠变化指数基准率显示,笔记本电脑-平板电脑组中73%的参与者在≥2次测试中可靠地下降,而平板电脑-笔记本电脑组为10%。在纠正平板电脑控制器时间伪影后,对快速反应时间(RT)任务的影响显著减弱,而对基于学习、记忆和准确性的子测试的影响仍然显著且具有较大的效应量。笔记本电脑组的下降率从73%下降到57%,但仍然是同平台参考率的4倍。结论:平板电脑和笔记本电脑的评分不可互换。硬件时序修正减弱了对快速RT子测试的影响,但没有减少对基于精度的测量的影响,这表明除了RT测量误差之外的因素也导致了跨平台差异。用基于笔记本电脑的规范数据或基线来解释基于平板电脑的管理可能会对考生进行错误的分类。在确定特定于平板电脑的解释标准之前,应该避免跨平台比较。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书