Xu Yangfan, Yu Jiadan, Mo Xiaocong, Chen Huiying, Shi Le, Lee Kathy Ys, Tong Michael C-F, O'Caoimh Rónán, Wang Yuling
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Rehabilitation Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2025 May 30;9:25424823251343810. doi: 10.1177/25424823251343810. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.
There is a growing focus on digitalizing screening instruments for use on computerized, mobile devices. However, few studies have compared the performance of electronic and traditional 'pen and paper' formats.
This study aimed to compare the performance of electronic and traditional 'pen and paper' formats of the Chinese version of Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Q-CN) screen in adults.
A convenience sample of 86 adults aged 18 years were included. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups that underwent the eQ-CN and pQ-CN screens in counterbalanced order. Patients completed a questionnaire detailing their experiences and preferences. Total and subscale scores and administration times were recorded.
A strong, statistically significant correlation ( = 0.77) was found between eQ-CN and pQ-CN scores for all participants. Analysis comparing the first administration only (eQ-CN versus pQ-CN) found no statistically significant difference in total scores, except for one subtest registration (p = 0.023), where participants scored lower on the eQ-CN. Administration times were similar, though the pQmci-CN was significantly shorter than eQmci-CN (287.41 s versus 302.78 s, respectively, p = 0.005).
The eQ-CN demonstrated strong correlation with the pQ-CN in this sample of Chinese adults. However, further research is required to examine these findings in a broader population to enhance the reliability and external validity of the results.
越来越多的人关注将筛查工具数字化，以便在计算机化的移动设备上使用。然而，很少有研究比较电子格式和传统“纸笔”格式的性能。
本研究旨在比较中文版快速轻度认知障碍筛查量表（Q-CN）的电子格式和传统“纸笔”格式在成人中的性能。
纳入了86名年龄在18岁的成年人作为便利样本。参与者被随机分为两组，以平衡的顺序接受电子Q-CN和纸质Q-CN筛查。患者完成了一份详细描述他们的经历和偏好的问卷。记录总分、子量表分数和施测时间。
所有参与者的电子Q-CN和纸质Q-CN分数之间存在强烈的、统计学上显著的相关性（r = 0.77）。仅比较首次施测（电子Q-CN与纸质Q-CN）的分析发现，总分没有统计学上的显著差异，但有一个子测试记录除外（p = 0.023），在该子测试中，参与者在电子Q-CN上的得分较低。施测时间相似，尽管纸质Qmci-CN明显短于电子Qmci-CN（分别为287.41秒和302.78秒，p = 0.005）。
在这个中国成年人样本中，电子Q-CN与纸质Q-CN表现出强烈的相关性。然而，需要进一步的研究在更广泛的人群中检验这些发现，以提高结果的可靠性和外部效度。
