No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2023
Mayo Test Drive (MTD): Test Development through Rapid Iteration, Validation and Expansion, is a web-based multi-device (smartphone, tablet, personal computer) platform optimized for remote self-administered cognitive assessment that includes a computer-adaptive word list memory test (Stricker Learning Span; SLS; Stricker et al., 2022; Stricker et al., in press) and a measure of processing speed (Symbols Test: Wilks et al., 2021). Study aims were to determine criterion validity of MTD by comparing the ability of the MTD raw composite and in-person administered cognitive measures to differentiate biomarkerdefined groups in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals on the Alzheimer’s continuum.
Mayo Clinic Study of Aging CU participants (N=319; mean age=71, SD=11, range=37-94; mean education=16, SD=2, range=6-20; 47% female) completed a brief remote cognitive assessment (∼0.5 months from in-person visit). Brain amyloid and brain tau PET scans were available within 3 years. Overlapping groups were formed for 1) those on the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) continuum (A+, n=110) or not (A-, n=209), and for 2) those with biological AD (A+T+, n=43) or with no evidence of AD pathology (A-T-, n=181). Primary outcome variables were MTD raw composite (SLS sum of trials + an accuracy-weighted Symbols response time measure), Global-z (average of 9 in-person neuropsychological measures) and an in-person screening measure (Kokmen Short Test of Mental Status, STMS; which is like the MMSE). Linear model ANOVAs were used to investigate biomarker subgroup differences and Hedge’s G effect sizes were derived, with and without adjusting for demographic variables (age, education, sex).
Remotely administered MTD raw composite showed comparable to slightly larger effect sizes compared to Global-z. Unadjusted effect sizes for MTD raw composite for differentiating A+ vs. A- and A+T+ vs. A-T- groups, respectively, were -0.57 and -0.84 and effect sizes for Global-z were -0.54 and -0.73 (all p’s<.05). Because biomarker positive groups were significantly older than biomarker negative groups, group differences were attenuated after adjusting for demographic variables, but MTD raw composite remained significant for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.35, p=.007); Global-z did not reach significance for A+T+ vs A-T- (adjusted effect size -0.19, p=.08). Neither composite reached significance for adjusted analyses for the A+ vs A- comparison (MTD raw composite adjusted effect size= -.22, p=.06; Global-z adjusted effect size= -.08, p=.47). Results were the same for an alternative MTD composite using traditional z-score averaging methods, but the raw score method is preferred for comparability to other screening measures. The STMS screening measure did not differentiate biomarker groups in any analyses (unadjusted and adjusted p’s>.05; d’s -0.23 to 0.05).
Remotely administered MTD raw composite shows at least similar ability to separate biomarker-defined groups in CU individuals as a Global-z for person-administered measures within a neuropsychological battery, providing evidence of criterion validity. Both the MTD raw composite and Global-z showed greater ability to separate biomarker positive from negative CU groups compared to a typical screening measure (STMS) that was unable to differentiate these groups. MTD may be useful as a screening measure to aid early detection of Alzheimer’s pathological changes.
You have
Access