开发用于远程评估执行功能和言语记忆的自测在线电池:与面对面评估的等效性、初步标准和接受度。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yiannis Tsiaras, Myrto Koutsonida, Maria-Ameriso Varthi, Iliana Galliou, Christina Zoubouli, Eleni Aretouli
{"title":"开发用于远程评估执行功能和言语记忆的自测在线电池:与面对面评估的等效性、初步标准和接受度。","authors":"Yiannis Tsiaras, Myrto Koutsonida, Maria-Ameriso Varthi, Iliana Galliou, Christina Zoubouli, Eleni Aretouli","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2376839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Interest in teleneuropsychology services increased considerably after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the utility of unsupervised administration of computerized tests remains largely unexplored. In the present study, we developed a brief computerized battery that assesses self-reported cognitive abilities and performances on executive functioning and verbal memory. We investigated the equivalence of the self-administration online (SAO) procedure and the face-to-face (FTF) administration. Preliminary normative data were developed and the acceptance of the SAO procedure was explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A community sample of 169 Greek adults [94 women; mean age: 41.95 (SD = 13.40) years, mean years of education: 15.10 (SD = 2.65)] completed the SAO assessment. A subgroup of 40 participants was tested in a counterbalanced way both with SAO and FTF. Participants' performances were compared with paired sample <i>t</i>-tests and the agreement between the two methods was estimated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to investigate the effect of demographic characteristics on SAO measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No difference between SAO and FTF scores was observed. ICCs indicated moderate to good agreement (.418-.848) for most measures. Age was positively associated with self-reported cognitive state and negatively with neuropsychological performances and the level of acceptance of the SAO procedure. Approximately 80% of participants reported satisfaction from the SAO assessment, 69% good compliance with the instructions, but less than 30% belief that the FTF assessment could be adequately replaced.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SAO testing is feasible and well accepted among Greek adults yielding equivalent results with FTF testing. Despite the wide satisfaction, though, notable reluctance was noted for the substitution of FTF with SAO procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a self-administered online battery for remote assessment of executive functions and verbal memory: equivalence with face-to-face administration, preliminary norms, and acceptance.\",\"authors\":\"Yiannis Tsiaras, Myrto Koutsonida, Maria-Ameriso Varthi, Iliana Galliou, Christina Zoubouli, Eleni Aretouli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2024.2376839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Interest in teleneuropsychology services increased considerably after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the utility of unsupervised administration of computerized tests remains largely unexplored. In the present study, we developed a brief computerized battery that assesses self-reported cognitive abilities and performances on executive functioning and verbal memory. We investigated the equivalence of the self-administration online (SAO) procedure and the face-to-face (FTF) administration. Preliminary normative data were developed and the acceptance of the SAO procedure was explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A community sample of 169 Greek adults [94 women; mean age: 41.95 (SD = 13.40) years, mean years of education: 15.10 (SD = 2.65)] completed the SAO assessment. A subgroup of 40 participants was tested in a counterbalanced way both with SAO and FTF. Participants' performances were compared with paired sample <i>t</i>-tests and the agreement between the two methods was estimated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to investigate the effect of demographic characteristics on SAO measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No difference between SAO and FTF scores was observed. ICCs indicated moderate to good agreement (.418-.848) for most measures. Age was positively associated with self-reported cognitive state and negatively with neuropsychological performances and the level of acceptance of the SAO procedure. Approximately 80% of participants reported satisfaction from the SAO assessment, 69% good compliance with the instructions, but less than 30% belief that the FTF assessment could be adequately replaced.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SAO testing is feasible and well accepted among Greek adults yielding equivalent results with FTF testing. Despite the wide satisfaction, though, notable reluctance was noted for the substitution of FTF with SAO procedures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2376839\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2376839","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:COVID-19 大流行之后,人们对远程神经心理学服务的兴趣大大增加。然而,在无人监督的情况下进行计算机化测试的效用在很大程度上仍未得到探讨。在本研究中,我们开发了一套简短的计算机化测试,用于评估自我报告的认知能力以及执行功能和言语记忆方面的表现。我们研究了在线自我施测(SAO)程序与面对面施测(FTF)的等效性。我们开发了初步的标准数据,并探讨了对 SAO 程序的接受程度:169 名希腊成年人(94 名女性,平均年龄:41.95(SD = 13.40)岁,平均受教育年限:15.10(SD = 2.40)年)的社区样本:15.10 (SD = 2.65)]完成了 SAO 评估。40名参与者组成的子组接受了SAO和FTF的平衡测试。通过配对样本 t 检验比较了参与者的表现,并通过类内相关系数 (ICC) 估算了两种方法之间的一致性。多元线性回归分析用于研究人口统计学特征对 SAO 测量的影响:结果:SAO 和 FTF 分数之间没有差异。ICCs表明大多数测量结果具有中度到良好的一致性(.418-.848)。年龄与自我报告的认知状态呈正相关,与神经心理学表现和对 SAO 程序的接受程度呈负相关。约有80%的参与者对SAO评估表示满意,69%的参与者很好地遵守了操作指南,但只有不到30%的参与者认为FTF评估可以充分替代SAO评估:结论:SAO 测试在希腊成年人中是可行的,并被广泛接受,其结果与 FTF 测试相当。结论:SAO 测试在希腊成年人中是可行的,并被广泛接受,其结果与 FTF 测试相当。尽管满意度很高,但人们对用 SAO 程序取代 FTF 仍有明显的抵触情绪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development of a self-administered online battery for remote assessment of executive functions and verbal memory: equivalence with face-to-face administration, preliminary norms, and acceptance.

Objectives: Interest in teleneuropsychology services increased considerably after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the utility of unsupervised administration of computerized tests remains largely unexplored. In the present study, we developed a brief computerized battery that assesses self-reported cognitive abilities and performances on executive functioning and verbal memory. We investigated the equivalence of the self-administration online (SAO) procedure and the face-to-face (FTF) administration. Preliminary normative data were developed and the acceptance of the SAO procedure was explored.

Methods: A community sample of 169 Greek adults [94 women; mean age: 41.95 (SD = 13.40) years, mean years of education: 15.10 (SD = 2.65)] completed the SAO assessment. A subgroup of 40 participants was tested in a counterbalanced way both with SAO and FTF. Participants' performances were compared with paired sample t-tests and the agreement between the two methods was estimated with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Multiple linear regression analyses were applied to investigate the effect of demographic characteristics on SAO measures.

Results: No difference between SAO and FTF scores was observed. ICCs indicated moderate to good agreement (.418-.848) for most measures. Age was positively associated with self-reported cognitive state and negatively with neuropsychological performances and the level of acceptance of the SAO procedure. Approximately 80% of participants reported satisfaction from the SAO assessment, 69% good compliance with the instructions, but less than 30% belief that the FTF assessment could be adequately replaced.

Conclusion: SAO testing is feasible and well accepted among Greek adults yielding equivalent results with FTF testing. Despite the wide satisfaction, though, notable reluctance was noted for the substitution of FTF with SAO procedures.

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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
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