Videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive measures in Brazilian older adults: a reliability and feasibility study

J. A. Silva, Diógenes Cândido Mendes Maranhão, N. B. Beltrão, Breno Quitella Farah, Vinicius de Oliveira Damasceno, Bruno Remigio Cavalcante, A. L. Pirauá
{"title":"Videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive measures in Brazilian older adults: a reliability and feasibility study","authors":"J. A. Silva, Diógenes Cândido Mendes Maranhão, N. B. Beltrão, Breno Quitella Farah, Vinicius de Oliveira Damasceno, Bruno Remigio Cavalcante, A. L. Pirauá","doi":"10.53886/gga.e0230002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: We aimed to determine the feasibility and reliability of videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive status among older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Thirty community-dwelling older adults (86.70% women) with a mean age of 69.77 (SD = 6.60) years who were physically independent and had no signs of cognitive impairment were included in the sample. An independent and experienced researcher assessed functional (chair rise test, chair stand test, sitting and rising test) and cognitive (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, parts A and B of the Trail Making Test, the Stroop test, the verbal fluency test) performance in real-time on the Google Meet platform on 2 non-consecutive days. The reliability of the measures was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a paired t-test, or Wilcoxon and Bland-Altman analysis. The feasibility of the assessment was investigated using a standardized 14-item questionnaire. Results: All functional performance measures showed excellent intra-rater reliability, with ICCs from 0.90 (95%CI 0.78 – 0.95) for the sitting and rising test to 0.98 (95%CI 0.96 – 0.99) for the chair rise test. Our analysis also showed mixed levels of reliability across measures, including good ICC (ranging from 0.79 – 0.91) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, part B of the Trail Making Test, and the congruent and neutral trials in the Stroop test, but poor-to-moderate ICC (ranging from 0.42 – 0.58) for the other cognitive assessments. In general, the participants reported good feasibility for the assessment format. Conclusion: In healthy and highly educated older adults, videoconferencing is a feasible method of determining functional and cognitive performance. Functional measures showed excellent reliability indexes, whereas cognitive data should be interpreted carefully, since the reliability varied from poor to moderate.","PeriodicalId":52782,"journal":{"name":"Geriatrics Gerontology and Aging","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geriatrics Gerontology and Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53886/gga.e0230002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to determine the feasibility and reliability of videoconference assessment of functional and cognitive status among older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Thirty community-dwelling older adults (86.70% women) with a mean age of 69.77 (SD = 6.60) years who were physically independent and had no signs of cognitive impairment were included in the sample. An independent and experienced researcher assessed functional (chair rise test, chair stand test, sitting and rising test) and cognitive (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, parts A and B of the Trail Making Test, the Stroop test, the verbal fluency test) performance in real-time on the Google Meet platform on 2 non-consecutive days. The reliability of the measures was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a paired t-test, or Wilcoxon and Bland-Altman analysis. The feasibility of the assessment was investigated using a standardized 14-item questionnaire. Results: All functional performance measures showed excellent intra-rater reliability, with ICCs from 0.90 (95%CI 0.78 – 0.95) for the sitting and rising test to 0.98 (95%CI 0.96 – 0.99) for the chair rise test. Our analysis also showed mixed levels of reliability across measures, including good ICC (ranging from 0.79 – 0.91) for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, part B of the Trail Making Test, and the congruent and neutral trials in the Stroop test, but poor-to-moderate ICC (ranging from 0.42 – 0.58) for the other cognitive assessments. In general, the participants reported good feasibility for the assessment format. Conclusion: In healthy and highly educated older adults, videoconferencing is a feasible method of determining functional and cognitive performance. Functional measures showed excellent reliability indexes, whereas cognitive data should be interpreted carefully, since the reliability varied from poor to moderate.
巴西老年人功能和认知测量的视频会议评估:可靠性和可行性研究
目的:我们旨在确定在COVID-19大流行背景下视频会议评估老年人功能和认知状况的可行性和可靠性。方法:选取30例平均年龄69.77 (SD = 6.60)岁、身体独立、无认知障碍症状的社区老年人,其中女性占86.70%。一位独立且经验丰富的研究人员在谷歌Meet平台上非连续两天实时评估功能(椅子上升测试、椅子站立测试、坐起测试)和认知(蒙特利尔认知评估、轨迹测试A、B部分、Stroop测试、语言流畅性测试)的表现。采用类内相关系数(ICC)、配对t检验或Wilcoxon和Bland-Altman分析来分析测量的可靠性。采用标准化的14项问卷调查评估的可行性。结果:所有功能表现测量都显示出出色的评分内信度,坐起测试的ICCs从0.90 (95%CI 0.78 - 0.95)到椅子上升测试的0.98 (95%CI 0.96 - 0.99)。我们的分析还显示了不同测量的不同程度的可靠性,包括蒙特利尔认知评估的良好ICC(范围从0.79 - 0.91),Trail Making Test的B部分,以及Stroop测试中的一致性和中性试验,但其他认知评估的差至中等ICC(范围从0.42 - 0.58)。总的来说,与会者报告了评估格式的良好可行性。结论:在健康和高学历的老年人中,视频会议是一种确定功能和认知表现的可行方法。功能测量显示了良好的可靠性指标,而认知数据应该仔细解释,因为可靠性从差到中等不等。
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
14
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
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