Feasibility, validity, and normative data for the remote Uniform Data Set neuropsychological battery at the University of Pennsylvania Alzheimer's Disease Research Center.

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the feasibility and validity of the remotely-administered neuropsychological battery from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (UDS T-Cog).

METHODS

Two hundred twenty Penn Alzheimer's Disease Research Center participants with unimpaired cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia completed the T-Cog during their annual UDS evaluation. We assessed administration feasibility and diagnostic group differences cross-sectionally across telephone versus videoconference modalities, and compared T-Cog to prior in-person UDS scores longitudinally.

RESULTS

Administration time averaged 54 min and 79% of participants who initiated a T-Cog completed all 12 subtests; completion time and rates differed by diagnostic group but not by modality. Performance varied expectedly across groups with moderate to strong associations between most T-Cog measures and in-person correlates, although select subtests demonstrated lower comparability.

DISCUSSION

The T-Cog is feasibly administered and shows preliminary validity in a cognitively heterogeneous cohort. Normative data from this cohort should be expanded to more diverse populations to enhance utility and generalizability.

HIGHLIGHTS

This study examined the feasibility and validity of the remote Uniform Data Set (also known as the T-Cog) and contributes key normative data for widespread use.A remote neuropsychological battery was feasibly administered with high overall engagement and completion rates, adequate reliability compared to in-person testing, and evidence of validity across diagnostic groups.Typical barriers to administration included hearing impairment, technology issues, and distractions; hearing difficulties were particularly common among cognitively impaired groups.Certain tests were less closely related to their in-person correlates and should be used with caution.