Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:52:56.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computerized Neuropsychological Assessments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Ellen Woo
Ellen Woo*
Affiliation:
Dr. Woo is visiting assistant professor at the Mary S. Easton Center for Alzheimer’s Disease Research at the, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Computer-based measures to evaluate cognition have been used with growing frequency in recent years. These batteries are shown to be useful for identifying mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. There are few requirements to administer these tests. All that is typically needed is a computer, a response pad for patients to input their answers, and an examiner. In many cases, the examiner does not need to be a trained neuropsychologist. These computer-based assessments should yield a score report detailing the patient’s cognitive profile.

An important advantage of computerized assessments over standard paper-and-pencil testing is that they can provide precise measurement at the millisecond level. This can be a more sensitive measure of cognitive impairment, especially in high-functioning older adults and in patients with milder levels of cognitive deficit. Computer tests also have a shorter assessment time. Many batteries take <1 hour to administer, whereas many standard neuropsychological batteries require >4 hours to complete. The presentation of items in some batteries can be adapted to patients’ performance levels to avoid floor effects (the test restricts how low a patients’ scores can be) and ceiling effects (the test restricts how high scores can be). Computer tests have increased standardization; they are administered the same way every time. Scoring is automatic, meaning the results are available immediately and human scoring error is reduced. Examiner effects are reduced, which is an important advantage because clinicians may differ in how they administer standard tests, which may impact patients’ responses. In addition, the batteries are easily transported, and multiple tasks can be made available on a single computer.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 13 , Issue S16 , 2008 , pp. 14 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1.Elwood, TW. Medicare’s role in financing allied health clinical training. J Allied Health. 2001;30(3):141–145.Google ScholarPubMed
2.Dwolatzky, T, Whitehead, V, Doniger, GM, et al.Validity of a novel computerized cognitive battery for mild cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatr. 2003;3:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Collerton, J, Collerton, D, Arai, Y, et al.A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(10):1630–1635.Google Scholar
4.Aggleton, JP, Brown, MW. Interleaving brain systems for episodic and recognition memory. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006;10(10):455–463.Google Scholar
5.Doniger, GM, Zucker, DM, Schweiger, A, et al.Towards practical cognitive assessment for detection of early dementia: a 30-minute computerized battery discriminates as well as longer testing. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2005;2(2):117–124.Google Scholar
6.Doniger, GM, Dwolatzky, T, Zucker, DM, et al.Computerized cognitive testing battery identifies mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia even in the presence of depressive symptoms. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2006;21(1):28–36.Google Scholar
7.Fillit, HM, Simon, ES, Doniger, GM, Cummings, JL. Practicality of a computerized system for cognitive assessment in the elderly. Alzheimers Dement. 2008;4(1):14–21.Google Scholar
8.Roth, M, Huppert, FA, Tym, E. The Cambridge Examination for Mental Disorders of the Elderly. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1988.Google Scholar
9.Williams, JG, Huppert, FA, Matthews, FE, et al.Performance and normative values of a concise neuropsychological test (CAMCOG) in an elderly population sample. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18(7):631–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Huppert, FA, Brayne, C, Gill, C, Paykel, ES, Beardsall, L. CAMCOG--a concise neuropsychological test to assist dementia diagnosis: socio-demographic determinants in an elderly population sample. Br J Clin Psychol. 1995;34(Pt 4):529–541.Google Scholar
11.Lindeboom, J, Ter Horst, R, Hooyer, C, Dinkgreve, M, Jonker, C. Some psychometric properties of the CAMCOG. Psychol Med. 1993;23(1):213–219.Google Scholar
12.Marcos, A, Gil, P, Barabash, A, et al.Neuropsychological markers of progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2006;21(3):189–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.van der Flier, WM, van der Vlies, AE, Weverling-Rijnsburger, AW, et al.MRI measures and progression of cognitive decline in nondemented elderly attending a memory clinic. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2005;20(11):1060–1066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.van Hout, H, Teunisse, S, Derix, M, et al.CAMDEX, can it be more efficient? Observational study on the contribution of four screening measures to the diagnosis of dementia by a memory clinic team. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2001;16(1):64–69.Google Scholar
15.Fowler, KS, Saling, MM, Conway, EL, Semple, JM, Louis, WJ. Paired associate performance in the early detection of DAT. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2002;8(1):58–71.Google Scholar
16.Cargin, JW, Maruff, P, Collie, A, Masters, C. Mild memory impairment in healthy older adults is distinct from normal aging. Brain Cogn. 2006;60(2):146–155.Google Scholar
17.Blackwell, AD, Sahakian, BJ, Vesey, R, Semple, JM, Robbins, TW, Hodges, JR. Detecting dementia: Novel neuropsychological markers of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2003;17(1-2):42–48.Google Scholar
18.Cedrus Corporation. SuperLab 4.0, Pro Edition Stimulus Presentation Software [Computer software]. San Pedro, CA (http://www.cedrus.com): 2007.Google Scholar
19.Huppert, FA, Beardsall, L. Prospective memory impairment as an early indicator of dementia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1993;15(5):805–821.Google Scholar
20.Dobbs, AR, Rule, BG. Prospective memory and self-reports of memory abilities in older adults. Can Journ Psychol. 1987;41(2):209–222.Google Scholar
21.Bondi, MW, Salmon, DP, Galasko, D, Thomas, RG, Thal, LJ. Neuropsychological function and apolipoprotein E genotype in the preclinical detection of Alzheimer’s disease. Psychol Aging. 1999;14(2):295–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Jones, S, Livner, A, Bäckman, L. Patterns of prospective and retrospective memory impairment in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology. 2006;20(2):144–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Smith, G, Della Sala, S, Logie, RH, Maylor, EA. Prospective and retrospective memory in normal ageing and dementia: a questionnaire study. Memory. 2000;8(5):311–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Kidder, DP, Park, DC, Hertzog, C, Morrell, RW. Prospective memory and aging: The effects of working memory and prospective memory task load. Aging Neuropsychol Cognit. 1997;4(2):93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar