基于电话的(半)自动化认知评估在记忆诊所人群中的用户体验。

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Daphne Ter Huurne, Inez Ramakers, Nina Possemis, Alexandra König, Nicklas Linz, Johannes Tröger, Kai Langel, Frans Verhey, Marjolein de Vugt
{"title":"基于电话的(半)自动化认知评估在记忆诊所人群中的用户体验。","authors":"Daphne Ter Huurne, Inez Ramakers, Nina Possemis, Alexandra König, Nicklas Linz, Johannes Tröger, Kai Langel, Frans Verhey, Marjolein de Vugt","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We examined the user experience in different modalities (face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based, and fully automated phone-based) of cognitive testing in people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 67 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ participated in the study. The study consisted of cognitive tests in different modalities, namely, face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based guided by a researcher, and fully automated phone-based without the involvement of a researcher. After each assessment, a user experience questionnaire was administered, including questions about, for example, satisfaction, simplicity, and missing personal contact, on a seven-point Likert scale. Non-parametric tests were used to compare user experiences across different modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all modalities, user experiences were rated above average. The face-to-face ratings were comparable to the ratings of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, except for the satisfaction and recommendation items, which were rated higher for the face-to-face assessment. The face-to-face assessment was preferred above the fully automated phone-based assessment on all items. In general, the semi- and fully automated phone-based assessments were comparable (simplicity, conceivability, quality of sound, visiting the hospital, and missing personal contact), while on all the other items, the semi-automated phone-based assessment was preferred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>User experience was rated high within all modalities. Simplicity, conceivability, comfortability, and participation scores were comparable in the semi-automated phone-based and face-to-face assessment. Based on these findings and earlier research on validation of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, the semi-automated assessment could be useful for screening for clinical trials, and after more research, in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User Experience of a (Semi-) Automated Cognitive Phone-Based Assessment Within a Memory Clinic Population.\",\"authors\":\"Daphne Ter Huurne, Inez Ramakers, Nina Possemis, Alexandra König, Nicklas Linz, Johannes Tröger, Kai Langel, Frans Verhey, Marjolein de Vugt\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arclin/acae063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We examined the user experience in different modalities (face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based, and fully automated phone-based) of cognitive testing in people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 67 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ participated in the study. The study consisted of cognitive tests in different modalities, namely, face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based guided by a researcher, and fully automated phone-based without the involvement of a researcher. After each assessment, a user experience questionnaire was administered, including questions about, for example, satisfaction, simplicity, and missing personal contact, on a seven-point Likert scale. Non-parametric tests were used to compare user experiences across different modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all modalities, user experiences were rated above average. The face-to-face ratings were comparable to the ratings of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, except for the satisfaction and recommendation items, which were rated higher for the face-to-face assessment. The face-to-face assessment was preferred above the fully automated phone-based assessment on all items. In general, the semi- and fully automated phone-based assessments were comparable (simplicity, conceivability, quality of sound, visiting the hospital, and missing personal contact), while on all the other items, the semi-automated phone-based assessment was preferred.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>User experience was rated high within all modalities. Simplicity, conceivability, comfortability, and participation scores were comparable in the semi-automated phone-based and face-to-face assessment. Based on these findings and earlier research on validation of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, the semi-automated assessment could be useful for screening for clinical trials, and after more research, in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae063\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae063","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的我们研究了主观认知能力下降和轻度认知障碍患者在不同认知测试模式(面对面测试、半自动电话测试和全自动电话测试)下的用户体验:共有来自马斯特里赫特大学医学中心+记忆诊所的 67 名参与者参与了这项研究。研究包括不同模式的认知测试,即面对面测试、由研究人员指导的半自动电话测试和无研究人员参与的全自动电话测试。每次评估后都会进行用户体验问卷调查,包括满意度、简便性和缺少个人联系等问题,采用李克特七分量表。使用非参数检验来比较不同模式的用户体验:在所有模式中,用户体验均高于平均水平。面对面评估的评分与半自动电话评估的评分相当,但满意度和推荐项目除外,面对面评估的满意度和推荐项目评分更高。在所有项目上,面对面评估都优于全自动电话评估。总的来说,半自动电话评估和全自动电话评估具有可比性(简单性、可设想性、声音质量、访问医院和缺少个人接触),而在所有其他项目上,半自动电话评估更受欢迎:结论:在所有模式中,用户体验的评分都很高。在半自动化电话评估和面对面评估中,简易性、可设想性、舒适性和参与度得分不相上下。基于这些研究结果和之前对半自动电话评估的验证研究,半自动评估可用于临床试验筛查,并在更多研究之后用于临床实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
User Experience of a (Semi-) Automated Cognitive Phone-Based Assessment Within a Memory Clinic Population.

Objective: We examined the user experience in different modalities (face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based, and fully automated phone-based) of cognitive testing in people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.

Method: A total of 67 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ participated in the study. The study consisted of cognitive tests in different modalities, namely, face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based guided by a researcher, and fully automated phone-based without the involvement of a researcher. After each assessment, a user experience questionnaire was administered, including questions about, for example, satisfaction, simplicity, and missing personal contact, on a seven-point Likert scale. Non-parametric tests were used to compare user experiences across different modalities.

Results: In all modalities, user experiences were rated above average. The face-to-face ratings were comparable to the ratings of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, except for the satisfaction and recommendation items, which were rated higher for the face-to-face assessment. The face-to-face assessment was preferred above the fully automated phone-based assessment on all items. In general, the semi- and fully automated phone-based assessments were comparable (simplicity, conceivability, quality of sound, visiting the hospital, and missing personal contact), while on all the other items, the semi-automated phone-based assessment was preferred.

Conclusions: User experience was rated high within all modalities. Simplicity, conceivability, comfortability, and participation scores were comparable in the semi-automated phone-based and face-to-face assessment. Based on these findings and earlier research on validation of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, the semi-automated assessment could be useful for screening for clinical trials, and after more research, in clinical practice.

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
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
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