Atkins Alexandra S, Tseng Tina, Vaughan Adam, Twamley Elizabeth W, Harvey Philip, Patterson Thomas, Narasimhan Meera, Keefe Richard S E
NeuroCog Trials, Durham, NC, USA.
University of California, San Diego, School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA; Center of Excellence for Stress and Mental Health, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA USA.
Schizophr Res. 2017 Mar;181:100-106. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.10.010. Epub 2016 Oct 19.
Computerized tests benefit from automated scoring procedures and standardized administration instructions. These methods can reduce the potential for rater error. However, especially in patients with severe mental illnesses, the equivalency of traditional and tablet-based tests cannot be assumed. The Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) is a pen-and-paper cognitive assessment tool that has been used in hundreds of research studies and clinical trials, and has normative data available for generating age- and gender-corrected standardized scores. A tablet-based version of the BACS called the BAC App has been developed. This study compared performance on the BACS and the BAC App in patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls. Test equivalency was assessed, and the applicability of paper-based normative data was evaluated. Results demonstrated the distributions of standardized composite scores for the tablet-based BAC App and the pen-and-paper BACS were indistinguishable, and the between-methods mean differences were not statistically significant. The discrimination between patients and controls was similarly robust. The between-methods correlations for individual measures in patients were r>0.70 for most subtests. When data from the Token Motor Test was omitted, the between-methods correlation of composite scores was r=0.88 (df=48; p<0.001) in healthy controls and r=0.89 (df=46; p<0.001) in patients, consistent with the test-retest reliability of each measure. Taken together, results indicate that the tablet-based BAC App generates results consistent with the traditional pen-and-paper BACS, and support the notion that the BAC App is appropriate for use in clinical trials and clinical practice.
计算机化测试得益于自动评分程序和标准化的施测说明。这些方法可以减少评分者误差的可能性。然而,尤其是在患有严重精神疾病的患者中,不能假定传统测试和基于平板电脑的测试具有等效性。精神分裂症认知简短评估量表(BACS)是一种纸笔认知评估工具,已用于数百项研究和临床试验,并有可用于生成年龄和性别校正标准化分数的常模数据。已开发出一种基于平板电脑的BACS版本,称为BAC应用程序。本研究比较了精神分裂症患者和健康对照在BACS和BAC应用程序上的表现。评估了测试等效性,并评估了纸质常模数据的适用性。结果表明,基于平板电脑的BAC应用程序和纸笔形式的BACS的标准化综合分数分布无法区分,方法间的平均差异无统计学意义。患者与对照之间的区分同样可靠。患者个体测量的方法间相关性在大多数子测试中r>0.70。当省略标记运动测试的数据时,健康对照中综合分数的方法间相关性r=0.88(自由度=48;p<0.001),患者中r=0.89(自由度=46;p<0.001),这与每个测量的重测信度一致。综上所述,结果表明基于平板电脑的BAC应用程序产生的结果与传统的纸笔形式的BACS一致,并支持BAC应用程序适用于临床试验和临床实践的观点。