Test–retest reliability, practice effects and estimates of change: A study on the Mindmore digital cognitive assessment tool.
Saved in:
| Title: | Test–retest reliability, practice effects and estimates of change: A study on the Mindmore digital cognitive assessment tool. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Bergman, Ingvar, Franke Föyen, Ludwig, Gustavsson, Anders, Van den Hurk, Wobbie |
| Source: | Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. Feb2025, Vol. 66 Issue 1, p1-14. 14p. |
| Subjects: | Digital technology, Mental health surveys, Language & languages, Cognitive testing, Research evaluation, Questionnaires, Cognitive processing speed, Executive function, Attention, Statistical reliability, Neuropsychological tests, Memory, Research methodology, Intraclass correlation, Psychological tests |
| Geographic Terms: | Sweden |
| Abstract: | The present study aimed to establish test–retest reliability and investigate practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool, a digital adaptation of traditional pencil and paper tests designed for self‐administration. Additionally, normative change scores for the most frequently used tests were derived. A total of 149 healthy Swedish adults (aged 20–79) completed the test battery twice, 1 month apart. The battery assessed attention and processing speed, memory, language, visuospatial functions, and executive functions. Test–retest reliability, measured by ICC and Spearman coefficients, and practice effects were estimated for 22 main‐scores and 33 sub‐scores. Regression models were used to assess change in performance while controlling for demographics, computer equipment, testing location (online or in‐laboratory) and baseline performance for 12 main‐scores and nine sub‐scores. Test–retest reliability was good for 11 main‐scores (≥0.70), satisfactory for five (0.60–0.69), and minimal for six (<0.60) albeit three having satisfactory sub‐scores. Practice effects were observed for tests with a major speed component, but not for reaction time, sustained attention, verbal memory and naming (alternate forms), nor visuospatial functions. Trackpad negatively influenced change for one test. Demographics and testing location did not significantly affect the change scores. Our study provides support for test–retest reliability and practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool which were comparable to those of traditional tests. These findings, together with the normative change scores, can aid researchers and clinicians in interpreting test results and distinguishing between normal variations in performance and changes indicative of clinical impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Scandinavian Journal of Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The present study aimed to establish test–retest reliability and investigate practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool, a digital adaptation of traditional pencil and paper tests designed for self‐administration. Additionally, normative change scores for the most frequently used tests were derived. A total of 149 healthy Swedish adults (aged 20–79) completed the test battery twice, 1 month apart. The battery assessed attention and processing speed, memory, language, visuospatial functions, and executive functions. Test–retest reliability, measured by ICC and Spearman coefficients, and practice effects were estimated for 22 main‐scores and 33 sub‐scores. Regression models were used to assess change in performance while controlling for demographics, computer equipment, testing location (online or in‐laboratory) and baseline performance for 12 main‐scores and nine sub‐scores. Test–retest reliability was good for 11 main‐scores (≥0.70), satisfactory for five (0.60–0.69), and minimal for six (<0.60) albeit three having satisfactory sub‐scores. Practice effects were observed for tests with a major speed component, but not for reaction time, sustained attention, verbal memory and naming (alternate forms), nor visuospatial functions. Trackpad negatively influenced change for one test. Demographics and testing location did not significantly affect the change scores. Our study provides support for test–retest reliability and practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool which were comparable to those of traditional tests. These findings, together with the normative change scores, can aid researchers and clinicians in interpreting test results and distinguishing between normal variations in performance and changes indicative of clinical impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00365564 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/sjop.13054 |
