Geriatrics Research Group, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Reinickendorfer Straße 61, 13347, Berlin, Germany.
Synaptikon GmbH, Ritterstraße 3, 10969, Berlin, Germany.
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021 Jun;33(6):1585-1597. doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01668-z. Epub 2020 Oct 1.
The number of people suffering from dementia is increasing worldwide and so is the need for reliable and economical diagnostic instruments. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the processing times of the neuropsychological tests Trail Making Tests A and B (TMT-A/B) and Color-Word Interference Test (CWIT), which were performed in both digital and paper versions.
The pilot study was conducted among 50 healthy participants (age 65-83 years) using a randomized crossover design. The correlations and differences in the individual processing times of the two test versions were statistically analyzed. Further research questions concerned the influence of the individual usage of technology and the technology commitment of participants as well as the influence of the assessed usability on participants' performance.
Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B r(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). The mean value comparison showed statistically significant differences, e.g., interference table (CWIT) t(49) = 11.24, p < 0.01). Correlations with medium effect were found between the differences in processing times and the individual usage of computer (e.g., r(48) = - 0.31) and smartphone (r(48) = - 0.29) and between the processing times of the TMT-B and the usability (r(48) = 0.29).
The high correlations between the test procedures appear promising. However, the differences found in the processing times of the two test versions require validation and standardization of digitized test procedures before they can be used in practice.
全球范围内,痴呆症患者的数量正在增加,因此对可靠且经济的诊断工具的需求也在增加。因此,本研究旨在比较数字和纸质版本的神经心理学测试 Trail Making Tests A 和 B(TMT-A/B)和颜色-词语干扰测试(CWIT)的处理时间。
采用随机交叉设计,对 50 名健康参与者(年龄 65-83 岁)进行了初步研究。统计分析了两种测试版本的个体处理时间的相关性和差异。进一步的研究问题涉及参与者个人使用技术的情况、对技术的投入程度以及评估的可用性对参与者表现的影响。
在两种版本(纸质版与数字化版)之间,所有测试的相关性均具有统计学意义,例如,TMT-A r(48) = 0.63,p < 0.01;TMT-B r(48) = 0.77,p < 0.001)。均值比较显示存在统计学差异,例如,干扰表(CWIT)t(49) = 11.24,p < 0.01)。在处理时间的差异与个人使用计算机(例如,r(48) = - 0.31)和智能手机(r(48) = - 0.29)之间,以及 TMT-B 的处理时间与可用性(r(48) = 0.29)之间,发现了中等效应的相关性。
测试程序之间的高度相关性很有希望。然而,两种测试版本的处理时间差异需要进一步验证和标准化,然后才能在实践中使用。