小脑共济失调患者远程MoCA管理有效性的大规模证据。

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yael De Picciotto, Avigail Lithwick Algon, Inbal Amit, Eli Vakil, William Saban
{"title":"小脑共济失调患者远程MoCA管理有效性的大规模证据。","authors":"Yael De Picciotto, Avigail Lithwick Algon, Inbal Amit, Eli Vakil, William Saban","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2397835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: For over half a century, studies of rare diseases using in-person cognitive tools have faced challenges, such as long study periods and small sample sizes (e.g. <i>n</i> = 10). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was widely employed to assess mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We aimed to validate a modified online version of the MoCA in a large sample of a rare disease (population prevalence < .01%). <b>Method</b>: First, we analyzed 20 previous findings (<i>n</i> = 1,377), comparing the MoCA scores between large groups of neurotypically healthy (NH; <i>n</i> = 837) and cerebellar ataxia (CA; <i>n</i> = 540), where studies were conducted in-person. Second, we administered the MoCA in-person to a group of NH (<i>n</i> = 41) and a large group of CA (<i>n</i> = 103). Third, we administered a video conferencing version of the MoCA to NH (<i>n</i> = 38) and a large group of CA (<i>n</i> = 83). <b>Results</b>: We observed no performance differences between online and in-person MoCA administration in the NH and CA groups (<i>p</i> > .05, <i>η</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.001), supporting reliability. Additionally, our online CA group had lower MoCA scores than the NH group (<i>p</i> < .001, Hedges' <i>g</i> = 0.68). This result is consistent with previous studies, as demonstrated by our forest plot across 20 previous in-person findings, supporting construct validity. <b>Conclusion</b>: The results indicate that an online screening tool is valid in a large sample of individuals with CA. Online testing is not only time and cost-effective, but facilitates disease management and monitoring, ultimately enabling early detection of MCI.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large-scale evidence for the validity of remote MoCA administration among people with cerebellar ataxia.\",\"authors\":\"Yael De Picciotto, Avigail Lithwick Algon, Inbal Amit, Eli Vakil, William Saban\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2024.2397835\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: For over half a century, studies of rare diseases using in-person cognitive tools have faced challenges, such as long study periods and small sample sizes (e.g. <i>n</i> = 10). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was widely employed to assess mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We aimed to validate a modified online version of the MoCA in a large sample of a rare disease (population prevalence < .01%). <b>Method</b>: First, we analyzed 20 previous findings (<i>n</i> = 1,377), comparing the MoCA scores between large groups of neurotypically healthy (NH; <i>n</i> = 837) and cerebellar ataxia (CA; <i>n</i> = 540), where studies were conducted in-person. Second, we administered the MoCA in-person to a group of NH (<i>n</i> = 41) and a large group of CA (<i>n</i> = 103). Third, we administered a video conferencing version of the MoCA to NH (<i>n</i> = 38) and a large group of CA (<i>n</i> = 83). <b>Results</b>: We observed no performance differences between online and in-person MoCA administration in the NH and CA groups (<i>p</i> > .05, <i>η</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.001), supporting reliability. Additionally, our online CA group had lower MoCA scores than the NH group (<i>p</i> < .001, Hedges' <i>g</i> = 0.68). This result is consistent with previous studies, as demonstrated by our forest plot across 20 previous in-person findings, supporting construct validity. <b>Conclusion</b>: The results indicate that an online screening tool is valid in a large sample of individuals with CA. Online testing is not only time and cost-effective, but facilitates disease management and monitoring, ultimately enabling early detection of MCI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2397835\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2397835","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:半个多世纪以来,使用现场认知工具对罕见疾病进行的研究一直面临着研究周期长、样本量小(如 n = 10)等挑战。蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)被广泛用于评估轻度认知障碍(MCI)。我们的目的是在一种罕见疾病的大样本中(人群患病率小于 0.01%)验证经过修改的在线版 MoCA。方法:首先,我们分析了之前的20项研究结果(n = 1,377),比较了神经健康(NH;n = 837)和小脑共济失调(CA;n = 540)两大群体的MoCA得分,这些研究都是亲自进行的。其次,我们对一组神经健康者(n = 41)和一大组小脑共济失调者(n = 103)亲自进行了 MoCA 测试。第三,我们对 NH(n = 38)和一大群 CA(n = 83)进行了视频会议版的 MoCA 测试。测试结果我们观察到,在线和面对面进行 MoCA 测验时,NH 组和 CA 组的表现没有差异(P > .05, η2 = 0.001),这证明了其可靠性。此外,在线 CA 组的 MoCA 分数低于 NH 组(p < .001,Hedges' g = 0.68)。这一结果与之前的研究结果一致,我们的森林图显示了之前 20 项面对面研究的结果,支持建构有效性。结论研究结果表明,在线筛查工具在大样本 CA 患者中是有效的。在线测试不仅省时省力,而且有利于疾病管理和监测,最终实现 MCI 的早期检测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Large-scale evidence for the validity of remote MoCA administration among people with cerebellar ataxia.

Objective: For over half a century, studies of rare diseases using in-person cognitive tools have faced challenges, such as long study periods and small sample sizes (e.g. n = 10). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was widely employed to assess mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We aimed to validate a modified online version of the MoCA in a large sample of a rare disease (population prevalence < .01%). Method: First, we analyzed 20 previous findings (n = 1,377), comparing the MoCA scores between large groups of neurotypically healthy (NH; n = 837) and cerebellar ataxia (CA; n = 540), where studies were conducted in-person. Second, we administered the MoCA in-person to a group of NH (n = 41) and a large group of CA (n = 103). Third, we administered a video conferencing version of the MoCA to NH (n = 38) and a large group of CA (n = 83). Results: We observed no performance differences between online and in-person MoCA administration in the NH and CA groups (p > .05, η2 = 0.001), supporting reliability. Additionally, our online CA group had lower MoCA scores than the NH group (p < .001, Hedges' g = 0.68). This result is consistent with previous studies, as demonstrated by our forest plot across 20 previous in-person findings, supporting construct validity. Conclusion: The results indicate that an online screening tool is valid in a large sample of individuals with CA. Online testing is not only time and cost-effective, but facilitates disease management and monitoring, ultimately enabling early detection of MCI.

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
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is 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