手写笔和手指绘图在ACEmobile视觉运动介导测试中有效性的试点检验。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-24 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2023.2249167
Rupert Noad, Craig Newman, Jade Chynoweth, Jacob Mayers, Stephen Hall, Donnchadh Murphy
{"title":"手写笔和手指绘图在ACEmobile视觉运动介导测试中有效性的试点检验。","authors":"Rupert Noad, Craig Newman, Jade Chynoweth, Jacob Mayers, Stephen Hall, Donnchadh Murphy","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2023.2249167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive assessments, such as the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), have been modified for administration using tablet computers. While this offers important advantages for practice, it may also threaten the test validity. The current study sought to test whether administering visuospatial and writing tests using a tablet (finger or stylus drawing), would demonstrate equivalence to traditional pencil and paper administration on ACEmobile.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study recruited 26 participants with Alzheimer's disease and 23 healthy older adults. Most participants had low familiarity with using a tablet computer. Participants completed ACEmobile in its entirety, after which they repeated the infinity loops, cube, and clock drawing and sentence writing tests by drawing with a stylus and their finger onto an iPad. Performance on the drawing and writing tests using a stylus, finger, and pencil were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences were observed between the finger and pencil administration on the ACEmobile, with participants performing worse on the finger drawing trials. Differences in scores were most apparent on the sentence writing task. In contrast, no statistical differences were observed between the pencil and stylus administration.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings of this pilot study have important implications for clinical neuropsychology and demonstrate that administering ACEmobile drawing tests with finger drawing is invalid. However, due to the small sample size, a lack of counterbalancing and the narrow range of scores of the dependent variable, we are unable to confidently interpret the validity of stylus drawing. This is an important consideration for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A pilot examination of the validity of stylus and finger drawing on visuomotor-mediated tests on ACEmobile.\",\"authors\":\"Rupert Noad, Craig Newman, Jade Chynoweth, Jacob Mayers, Stephen Hall, Donnchadh Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2023.2249167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cognitive assessments, such as the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), have been modified for administration using tablet computers. While this offers important advantages for practice, it may also threaten the test validity. The current study sought to test whether administering visuospatial and writing tests using a tablet (finger or stylus drawing), would demonstrate equivalence to traditional pencil and paper administration on ACEmobile.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study recruited 26 participants with Alzheimer's disease and 23 healthy older adults. Most participants had low familiarity with using a tablet computer. Participants completed ACEmobile in its entirety, after which they repeated the infinity loops, cube, and clock drawing and sentence writing tests by drawing with a stylus and their finger onto an iPad. Performance on the drawing and writing tests using a stylus, finger, and pencil were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences were observed between the finger and pencil administration on the ACEmobile, with participants performing worse on the finger drawing trials. Differences in scores were most apparent on the sentence writing task. In contrast, no statistical differences were observed between the pencil and stylus administration.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings of this pilot study have important implications for clinical neuropsychology and demonstrate that administering ACEmobile drawing tests with finger drawing is invalid. However, due to the small sample size, a lack of counterbalancing and the narrow range of scores of the dependent variable, we are unable to confidently interpret the validity of stylus drawing. This is an important consideration for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2249167\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2023.2249167","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:认知评估,如阿登布鲁克认知检查(ACE-III)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA),已被修改为使用平板电脑进行管理。虽然这为实践提供了重要的优势,但也可能威胁到测试的有效性。目前的研究试图测试使用平板电脑(手指或手写笔)进行视觉空间和书写测试是否与ACEmobile上传统的铅笔和纸笔测试等效。方法:这项研究招募了26名阿尔茨海默病患者和23名健康老年人。大多数参与者对使用平板电脑的熟悉程度较低。参与者完整完成了ACEmobile,之后他们用手写笔和手指在iPad上画画,重复了无限循环、立方体、时钟绘图和句子写作测试。比较了使用手写笔、手指和铅笔进行绘图和书写测试的表现。结果:在ACEmobile上,手指和铅笔给药之间存在统计学上的显著差异,参与者在手指绘图试验中表现更差。在句子写作任务中,得分差异最为明显。相反,在铅笔和手写笔给药之间没有观察到统计学差异。讨论:这项试点研究的结果对临床神经心理学具有重要意义,并证明用手指绘图进行ACEmobile绘图测试是无效的。然而,由于样本量小、缺乏平衡以及因变量的得分范围窄,我们无法自信地解释手写笔绘画的有效性。这是未来研究的一个重要考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A pilot examination of the validity of stylus and finger drawing on visuomotor-mediated tests on ACEmobile.

Introduction: Cognitive assessments, such as the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), have been modified for administration using tablet computers. While this offers important advantages for practice, it may also threaten the test validity. The current study sought to test whether administering visuospatial and writing tests using a tablet (finger or stylus drawing), would demonstrate equivalence to traditional pencil and paper administration on ACEmobile.

Method: This study recruited 26 participants with Alzheimer's disease and 23 healthy older adults. Most participants had low familiarity with using a tablet computer. Participants completed ACEmobile in its entirety, after which they repeated the infinity loops, cube, and clock drawing and sentence writing tests by drawing with a stylus and their finger onto an iPad. Performance on the drawing and writing tests using a stylus, finger, and pencil were compared.

Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between the finger and pencil administration on the ACEmobile, with participants performing worse on the finger drawing trials. Differences in scores were most apparent on the sentence writing task. In contrast, no statistical differences were observed between the pencil and stylus administration.

Discussion: The findings of this pilot study have important implications for clinical neuropsychology and demonstrate that administering ACEmobile drawing tests with finger drawing is invalid. However, due to the small sample size, a lack of counterbalancing and the narrow range of scores of the dependent variable, we are unable to confidently interpret the validity of stylus drawing. This is an important consideration for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Cardiorespiratory fitness and working memory in persons with traumatic brain injury: a cross-sectional analysis. Fatigue management: a systematic review of objective measurement techniques for cognitive fatigue. Cognitive reserve in individuals with frontotemporal dementia: a systematic review. Optimal cutoff scores of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to detect mild cognitive impairment and dementia in Costa Rican older adults. Symptom validity testing in adults with clinically diagnosed ADHD: comparison of the Conner's Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1