51 Feasibility of Remote Administration of a Modified UDSv3 Cognitive Battery

Abstract

Objective:

Face-to-face administration is the “gold standard” for both research and clinical cognitive assessments. However, many factors may impede or prevent face-to-face assessments, including distance to clinic, limited mobility, eyesight, or transportation. The COVID19 pandemic further widened gaps in access to care and clinical research participation. Alternatives to face-to-face assessments may provide an opportunity to alleviate the burden caused by both the COVID-19 pandemic and longer standing social inequities. The objectives of this study were to develop and assess the feasibility of a telephone- and video-administered version of the Uniform Data Set (UDS) v3 cognitive batteries for use by NIH-funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) and other research programs.

Participants and Methods:

Ninety-three individuals (M age: 72.8 years; education: 15.6 years; 72% female; 84% White) enrolled in our ADRC were included. Their most recent adjudicated cognitive status was normal cognition (N=44), MCI (N=35), mild dementia (N=11) or other (N=3). They completed portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the RAVLT, either by telephone or video-format within approximately 6 months (M:151 days) of their annual in-person visit, where they completed the same in-person cognitive assessments. Some measures were substituted (Oral Trails for TMT; Blind MoCA for MoCA) to allow for phone administration. Participants also answered questions about the pleasantness, difficulty level, and preference for administration mode. Cognitive testers provided ratings of perceived validity of the assessment. Participants’ cognitive status was adjudicated by a group of cognitive experts blinded to most recent inperson cognitive status.

Results:

When results from video and phone modalities were combined, the remote assessments were rated as pleasant as the inperson assessment by 74% of participants. 75% rated the level of difficulty completing the remote cognitive assessment the same as the in-person testing. Overall perceived validity of the testing session, determined by cognitive assessors (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%), was good. There was generally good concordance between test scores obtained remotely and in-person (r = .3 -.8; p < .05), regardless of whether they were administered by phone or video, though individual test correlations differed slightly by mode. Substituted measures also generally correlated well, with the exception of TMT-A and OTMT-A (p > .05). Agreement between adjudicated cognitive status obtained remotely and cognitive status based on in-person data was generally high (78%), with slightly better concordance between video/in-person (82%) vs phone/in-person (76%).

Conclusions:

This pilot study provided support for the use of telephone- and video-administered cognitive assessments using the UDSv3 among individuals with normal cognitive function and some degree of cognitive impairment. Participants found the experience similarly pleasant and no more difficult than inperson assessment. Test scores obtained remotely correlated well with those obtained in person, with some variability across individual tests. Adjudication of cognitive status did not differ significantly whether it was based on data obtained remotely or in-person. The study was limited by its’ small sample size, large test-retest window, and lack of randomization to test-modality order. Current efforts are underway to more fully validate this battery of tests for remote assessment. Funded by: P30 AG072947 & P30 AG049638-05S1