统一数据集第 3 版远程神经心理学测量评估。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-27 DOI:10.1017/S1355617723000383
Theresa F Gierzynski, Allyson Gregoire, Jonathan M Reader, Rebecca Pantis, Stephen Campbell, Arijit Bhaumik, Annalise Rahman-Filipiak, Judith Heidebrink, Bruno Giordani, Henry Paulson, Benjamin M Hampstead
{"title":"统一数据集第 3 版远程神经心理学测量评估。","authors":"Theresa F Gierzynski, Allyson Gregoire, Jonathan M Reader, Rebecca Pantis, Stephen Campbell, Arijit Bhaumik, Annalise Rahman-Filipiak, Judith Heidebrink, Bruno Giordani, Henry Paulson, Benjamin M Hampstead","doi":"10.1017/S1355617723000383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Few studies have evaluated in-home teleneuropsychological (teleNP) assessment and none, to our knowledge, has evaluated the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study evaluates the reliability of the in-home UDS v3.0 t-cog with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>One hundred and eighty-one cognitively unimpaired or cognitively impaired participants from a longitudinal study of memory and aging completed an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent UDS v3.0 t-cog evaluation (∼16 months apart) administered either via video conference (<i>n</i> = 122) or telephone (<i>n</i> = 59).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between each time point for the entire sample. ICCs ranged widely (0.01-0.79) but were generally indicative of \"moderate\" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.5-0.75) to \"good\" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.75-0.90) agreement. Comparable ICCs were evident when looking only at those with stable diagnoses. However, relatively stronger ICCs (Range: 0.35-0.87) were found between similarly timed in-person UDS v3.0 evaluations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that most tests on the UDS v3.0 t-cog battery may serve as a viable alternative to its in-person counterpart, though reliability may be attenuated relative to the traditional in-person format. More tightly controlled studies are needed to better establish the reliability of these measures.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Uniform Data Set version 3 teleneuropsychological measures.\",\"authors\":\"Theresa F Gierzynski, Allyson Gregoire, Jonathan M Reader, Rebecca Pantis, Stephen Campbell, Arijit Bhaumik, Annalise Rahman-Filipiak, Judith Heidebrink, Bruno Giordani, Henry Paulson, Benjamin M Hampstead\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1355617723000383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Few studies have evaluated in-home teleneuropsychological (teleNP) assessment and none, to our knowledge, has evaluated the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study evaluates the reliability of the in-home UDS v3.0 t-cog with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>One hundred and eighty-one cognitively unimpaired or cognitively impaired participants from a longitudinal study of memory and aging completed an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent UDS v3.0 t-cog evaluation (∼16 months apart) administered either via video conference (<i>n</i> = 122) or telephone (<i>n</i> = 59).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between each time point for the entire sample. ICCs ranged widely (0.01-0.79) but were generally indicative of \\\"moderate\\\" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.5-0.75) to \\\"good\\\" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.75-0.90) agreement. Comparable ICCs were evident when looking only at those with stable diagnoses. However, relatively stronger ICCs (Range: 0.35-0.87) were found between similarly timed in-person UDS v3.0 evaluations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that most tests on the UDS v3.0 t-cog battery may serve as a viable alternative to its in-person counterpart, though reliability may be attenuated relative to the traditional in-person format. More tightly controlled studies are needed to better establish the reliability of these measures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10751395/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723000383\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617723000383","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:很少有研究对居家远程神经心理学(teleNP)评估进行过评估,据我们所知,没有一项研究对美国国家阿尔茨海默氏症协调中心(NACC)的统一数据集第三版远程适配测试套件(UDS v3.0 t-cog)进行过评估。目前的研究评估了上门 UDS v3.0 t-cog 与之前的上门 UDS v3.0 评估的可靠性:方法:在一项记忆与衰老纵向研究中,181 名认知能力未受损或认知能力受损的参与者通过视频会议(122 人)或电话(59 人)完成了一次上门 UDS v3.0 评估和随后的 UDS v3.0 t-cog 评估(相隔 16 个月):我们计算了所有样本每个时间点之间的类内相关系数(ICC)。ICCs 的范围很广(0.01-0.79),但一般显示出 "中等"(即 ICCs 在 0.5-0.75 之间)到 "良好"(即 ICCs 在 0.75-0.90 之间)的一致性。如果只观察诊断结果稳定的患者,ICCs 的一致性可与之媲美。然而,在时间相近的 UDS v3.0 当面评估中发现了相对更强的 ICCs(范围:0.35-0.87):我们的研究结果表明,UDS v3.0 t-cog 电池组中的大多数测试可作为面对面测试的可行替代方案,但相对于传统的面对面形式,可靠性可能会有所降低。要更好地确定这些测试的可靠性,还需要进行更严格的控制研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Uniform Data Set version 3 teleneuropsychological measures.

Objective: Few studies have evaluated in-home teleneuropsychological (teleNP) assessment and none, to our knowledge, has evaluated the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center's (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study evaluates the reliability of the in-home UDS v3.0 t-cog with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.

Method: One hundred and eighty-one cognitively unimpaired or cognitively impaired participants from a longitudinal study of memory and aging completed an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent UDS v3.0 t-cog evaluation (∼16 months apart) administered either via video conference (n = 122) or telephone (n = 59).

Results: We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between each time point for the entire sample. ICCs ranged widely (0.01-0.79) but were generally indicative of "moderate" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.5-0.75) to "good" (i.e., ICCs ranging from 0.75-0.90) agreement. Comparable ICCs were evident when looking only at those with stable diagnoses. However, relatively stronger ICCs (Range: 0.35-0.87) were found between similarly timed in-person UDS v3.0 evaluations.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that most tests on the UDS v3.0 t-cog battery may serve as a viable alternative to its in-person counterpart, though reliability may be attenuated relative to the traditional in-person format. More tightly controlled studies are needed to better establish the reliability of these measures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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