{"title":"Accuracy of Reaction Time Measurement on Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric UltraMobile.","authors":"Jacques Arrieux,Brian Ivins","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nThis observational study examined the accuracy of simple reaction time (RT) measurements on various touchscreen tablet devices using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric (ANAM) UltraMobile test battery. The study investigated the implications of interpreting ANAM UltraMobile with laptop-based normative data by analyzing the magnitude and variability of RT accuracy across devices.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nRT accuracy on 10 different tablets was assessed using a photodetector and robotic arm to respond to stimuli at predetermined response times. The recorded RT was compared with the true RT obtained from the robotic arm to calculate the RT error.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nANAM UltraMobile recorded slower RTs than the laptop version. Additionally, RT error varied considerably among the 10 tablet models, suggesting psychometrically significant implications that could lead to interpretive errors when using laptop-based normative data.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nRelative to the RT error from the laptop-based version of ANAM, tablet data from ANAM UltraMobile are significantly slower and exhibit large variability between devices. These differences may have clinically significant implications for the comparability of the two versions. The findings suggest that further research with human participants is needed to assess the equivalence of ANAM UltraMobile with its predecessor.","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
This observational study examined the accuracy of simple reaction time (RT) measurements on various touchscreen tablet devices using the Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric (ANAM) UltraMobile test battery. The study investigated the implications of interpreting ANAM UltraMobile with laptop-based normative data by analyzing the magnitude and variability of RT accuracy across devices.
METHOD
RT accuracy on 10 different tablets was assessed using a photodetector and robotic arm to respond to stimuli at predetermined response times. The recorded RT was compared with the true RT obtained from the robotic arm to calculate the RT error.
RESULTS
ANAM UltraMobile recorded slower RTs than the laptop version. Additionally, RT error varied considerably among the 10 tablet models, suggesting psychometrically significant implications that could lead to interpretive errors when using laptop-based normative data.
CONCLUSIONS
Relative to the RT error from the laptop-based version of ANAM, tablet data from ANAM UltraMobile are significantly slower and exhibit large variability between devices. These differences may have clinically significant implications for the comparability of the two versions. The findings suggest that further research with human participants is needed to assess the equivalence of ANAM UltraMobile with its predecessor.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.