Edinburgh Dementia Prevention, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;81(4):1625-1647. doi: 10.3233/JAD-210088.
Telephone and videoconference administration of cognitive tests introduce additional sources of variance compared to in-person testing. Reviews of test-retest reliability have included mixed neurocognitive and psychiatric populations with limited consideration of methodological and statistical contributions.
We reviewed reliability estimates from comparison studies of older adults with and without dementia, considering test-retest analyses and study methods.
Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science were systematically searched from 1 January 2000 to 9 June 2020 for original articles comparing telephone or videoconference administered cognitive instruments to in-person administration in older adults with and without dementia or mild cognitive impairment.
Of 4,125 articles, 23 were included: 11 telephone (N = 2 dementia cohorts) and 12 videoconference (N = 4 dementia cohorts). Telephone administered subtest scores trended in the same direction as in-person with comparable means. Person-level data were scarce. Data on dementia was only available for MMSE, with resulting subtle modality bias. MMSE, SMMSE, Letter Fluency, and HVLT-R in healthy to mild-moderate Alzheimer's disease were particularly reliable for videoconference administration. Other tests show promise but require more observations and comprehensive analyses. Most studies used high-speed stable videoconferencing hardware resulting in a lack of ecological validity for home administration.
Remote administration is often consistent with in-person administration but variable and limited at the person/test level. Improved statistical design and inclusion of dementia related cohorts in telephone studies is recommended. Reliability evidence is stronger for videoconferencing but with limited applicability to home administration and severe dementia. Improved reporting of administrative procedures is recommended.
与面对面测试相比，电话和视频会议管理认知测试会引入额外的变异性来源。测试重测信度的综述包括混合神经认知和精神科人群，但对方法学和统计学的贡献考虑有限。
我们回顾了痴呆症和非痴呆症老年人比较研究的可靠性估计值，同时考虑了测试重测分析和研究方法。
从 2000 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 6 月 9 日，我们系统地检索了 Medline、Embase、PsycINFO 和 Web of Science 中的原始文章，这些文章比较了电话或视频会议管理的认知工具与痴呆症和非痴呆症或轻度认知障碍老年人的面对面管理。
在 4125 篇文章中，有 23 篇被纳入：11 篇电话（N=2 个痴呆队列）和 12 篇视频会议（N=4 个痴呆队列）。电话管理的子测试分数与面对面测试的分数趋势相同，具有相似的平均值。个人水平的数据很少。只有 MMSE 有关于痴呆的数据，导致细微的模态偏差。对于视频会议管理，MMSE、SMMSE、字母流畅性和 HVLT-R 在健康到轻度至中度阿尔茨海默病患者中特别可靠。其他测试也有希望，但需要更多的观察和全面的分析。大多数研究使用高速稳定的视频会议硬件，导致家庭管理的生态有效性不足。
远程管理通常与面对面管理一致，但在个人/测试水平上存在差异和局限性。建议在电话研究中改进统计设计并纳入与痴呆相关的队列。视频会议的可靠性证据更强，但适用于家庭管理和严重痴呆的情况有限。建议改进行政程序的报告。
