4.4 Article

Evaluation of multidimensional neurocognitive function using a tablet personal computer: Test-retest reliability and validity in community-dwelling older adults

Journal

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 860-866

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ggi.12014

Keywords

aged-population; assessment; cognitive functioning; screening

Funding

  1. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimThis study sought to confirm the test-retest reliability and validity of the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology functional assessment tool (NCGG-FAT), a newly developed assessment of multidimensional neurocognitive function using a tablet personal computer (PC). MethodsThis study included 20 community-dwelling older adults (9 females, aged 65-81 years). Participants were administered the NCGG-FAT twice, separated by approximately 30 days to determine test-retest reliability. To test the validity of the measure, participants underwent established neurocognitive measurements, including memory, attention, executive function, processing speed and visuospatial function within a week from the first administration of the NCGG-FAT. ResultsTest-retest reliability was in an acceptable range for each component of the NCGG-FAT, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.764 to 0.942. Each task in the NCGG-FAT showed a moderate to high correlation with scores on widely-used conventional neurocognitive tests (r=0.496 to 0.842). ConclusionWe found that the NCGG-FAT using a tablet PC was reliable in a sample of community-dwelling older adults. The NCGG-FAT might be useful for cognitive screening in population-based samples and outcomes, enabling assessment of the effects of intervention on multidimensional cognitive function among older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2013; 13: 860-866.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available