A comparison of electronic and paper versions of the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q-CN) screen.

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.