证据支持响应时间的有效性和可靠性从一个简短的调查作为一个大型小组研究的处理速度的数字生物标志物。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Raymond Hernandez, Arthur A Stone, Elizabeth Zelinski, Erik Meijer, Titus Galama, Jessica Faul, Arie Kapteyn, Doerte U Junghaenel, Haomiao Jin, Margaret Gatz, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Daniel Maupin, Hongxin Gao, Bart Orriens, Stefan Schneider
{"title":"证据支持响应时间的有效性和可靠性从一个简短的调查作为一个大型小组研究的处理速度的数字生物标志物。","authors":"Raymond Hernandez, Arthur A Stone, Elizabeth Zelinski, Erik Meijer, Titus Galama, Jessica Faul, Arie Kapteyn, Doerte U Junghaenel, Haomiao Jin, Margaret Gatz, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Daniel Maupin, Hongxin Gao, Bart Orriens, Stefan Schneider","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Survey response times (RTs) have hitherto untapped potential to allow researchers to gain more detailed insights into the cognitive performance of participants in online panel studies. We examined if RTs recorded from a brief online survey could serve as a digital biomarker for processing speed. Data from 9,893 adults enrolled in the nationally representative Understanding America Study were used in the analyses. Hypotheses included that people's average survey RTs would have a large correlation with an established processing speed test, small to moderate correlations with other cognitive tests, and associations with functional impairment. We also hypothesized that survey RTs would have sensitivity to various participant characteristics comparable to the established processing speed test's sensitivity (e.g., similar standardized means by gender). Overall, results support the validity and reliability of people's average RTs to survey items as a digital biomarker for processing speed. The correlation between survey RTs (reverse scored) and the formal processing speed test was 0.61 (p<0.001), and small to moderate associations with most other cognitive and functional status measures were observed. Sensitivity of survey RTs to various participant characteristics was nearly identical to the formal processing speed test. Survey RTs may be useful as proxies for processing speed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence Supports the Validity and Reliability of Response Times from a Brief Survey as a Digital Biomarker for Processing Speed in a Large Panel Study.\",\"authors\":\"Raymond Hernandez, Arthur A Stone, Elizabeth Zelinski, Erik Meijer, Titus Galama, Jessica Faul, Arie Kapteyn, Doerte U Junghaenel, Haomiao Jin, Margaret Gatz, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Daniel Maupin, Hongxin Gao, Bart Orriens, Stefan Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwae478\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Survey response times (RTs) have hitherto untapped potential to allow researchers to gain more detailed insights into the cognitive performance of participants in online panel studies. We examined if RTs recorded from a brief online survey could serve as a digital biomarker for processing speed. Data from 9,893 adults enrolled in the nationally representative Understanding America Study were used in the analyses. Hypotheses included that people's average survey RTs would have a large correlation with an established processing speed test, small to moderate correlations with other cognitive tests, and associations with functional impairment. We also hypothesized that survey RTs would have sensitivity to various participant characteristics comparable to the established processing speed test's sensitivity (e.g., similar standardized means by gender). Overall, results support the validity and reliability of people's average RTs to survey items as a digital biomarker for processing speed. The correlation between survey RTs (reverse scored) and the formal processing speed test was 0.61 (p<0.001), and small to moderate associations with most other cognitive and functional status measures were observed. Sensitivity of survey RTs to various participant characteristics was nearly identical to the formal processing speed test. Survey RTs may be useful as proxies for processing speed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae478\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae478","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迄今为止,调查反应时间(RTs)还具有未开发的潜力,可以让研究人员更详细地了解在线小组研究中参与者的认知表现。我们研究了从简短的在线调查中记录的RTs是否可以作为处理速度的数字生物标志物。来自全国代表性的“了解美国研究”的9893名成年人的数据被用于分析。假设包括人们的平均调查RTs与既定的处理速度测试有很大的相关性,与其他认知测试有小到中等的相关性,并与功能障碍有关。我们还假设,调查RTs对各种参与者特征的敏感性与既定的处理速度测试的敏感性相当(例如,按性别划分的类似标准化方法)。总体而言,结果支持人们对调查项目的平均RTs作为处理速度的数字生物标志物的效度和信度。调查RTs(反向得分)与形式处理速度测验的相关系数为0.61 (p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence Supports the Validity and Reliability of Response Times from a Brief Survey as a Digital Biomarker for Processing Speed in a Large Panel Study.

Survey response times (RTs) have hitherto untapped potential to allow researchers to gain more detailed insights into the cognitive performance of participants in online panel studies. We examined if RTs recorded from a brief online survey could serve as a digital biomarker for processing speed. Data from 9,893 adults enrolled in the nationally representative Understanding America Study were used in the analyses. Hypotheses included that people's average survey RTs would have a large correlation with an established processing speed test, small to moderate correlations with other cognitive tests, and associations with functional impairment. We also hypothesized that survey RTs would have sensitivity to various participant characteristics comparable to the established processing speed test's sensitivity (e.g., similar standardized means by gender). Overall, results support the validity and reliability of people's average RTs to survey items as a digital biomarker for processing speed. The correlation between survey RTs (reverse scored) and the formal processing speed test was 0.61 (p<0.001), and small to moderate associations with most other cognitive and functional status measures were observed. Sensitivity of survey RTs to various participant characteristics was nearly identical to the formal processing speed test. Survey RTs may be useful as proxies for processing speed.

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
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
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