Comparing Web-Based and Lab-Based Cognitive Assessment Using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery: A Within-Subjects Counterbalanced Study

• Published in: Journal of medical Internet research Vol. 22; no. 8; p. e16792
• Main Authors: Backx, Rosa, Skirrow, Caroline, Dente, Pasquale, Barnett, Jennifer H, Cormack, Francesca K
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor 04.08.2020; JMIR Publications
• Subjects: Access; Acknowledgment; Adult; Agreements; Automation; Bayesian analysis; Bias; Clinical assessment; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Cognition - physiology; Cognitive ability; Cognitive functioning; Computer peripherals; Computerization; Costs; Emotion recognition; Episodic memory; Equivalence; Female; Flexibility; Humans; Interactive computer systems; Internet; Internet - standards; Laboratories; Laboratories - standards; Male; Measurement; Neuropsychological assessment; Neuropsychological Tests - standards; Neuropsychology; Original Paper; Pattern recognition; Power; Quantitative genetics; Reaction time; Recruitment; Reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Software; Sustained attention; Within-subjects design; United Kingdom > UK; CANTAB; neuropsychological tests; cognition; mobile health; reliability
• DOI: 10.2196/16792
• ISSN: 1438-8871; 1439-4456

Computerized assessments are already used to derive accurate and reliable measures of cognitive function. Web-based cognitive assessment could improve the accessibility and flexibility of research and clinical assessment, widen participation, and promote research recruitment while simultaneously reducing costs. However, differences in context may influence task performance. This study aims to determine the comparability of an unsupervised, web-based administration of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB) against a typical in-person lab-based assessment, using a within-subjects counterbalanced design. The study aims to test (1) reliability, quantifying the relationship between measurements across settings using correlational approaches; (2) equivalence, the extent to which test results in different settings produce similar overall results; and (3) agreement, by quantifying acceptable limits to bias and differences between measurement environments. A total of 51 healthy adults (32 women and 19 men; mean age 36.8, SD 15.6 years) completed 2 testing sessions, which were completed on average 1 week apart (SD 4.5 days). Assessments included equivalent tests of emotion recognition (emotion recognition task [ERT]), visual recognition (pattern recognition memory [PRM]), episodic memory (paired associate learning [PAL]), working memory and spatial planning (spatial working memory [SWM] and one touch stockings of Cambridge), and sustained attention (rapid visual information processing [RVP]). Participants were randomly allocated to one of the two groups, either assessed in-person in the laboratory first (n=33) or with unsupervised web-based assessments on their personal computing systems first (n=18). Performance indices (errors, correct trials, and response sensitivity) and median reaction times were extracted. Intraclass and bivariate correlations examined intersetting reliability, linear mixed models and Bayesian paired sample t tests tested for equivalence, and Bland-Altman plots examined agreement. Intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficients ranged from ρ=0.23-0.67, with high correlations in 3 performance indices (from PAL, SWM, and RVP tasks; ρ≥0.60). High ICC values were also seen for reaction time measures from 2 tasks (PRM and ERT tasks; ρ≥0.60). However, reaction times were slower during web-based assessments, which undermined both equivalence and agreement for reaction time measures. Performance indices did not differ between assessment settings and generally showed satisfactory agreement. Our findings support the comparability of CANTAB performance indices (errors, correct trials, and response sensitivity) in unsupervised, web-based assessments with in-person and laboratory tests. Reaction times are not as easily translatable from in-person to web-based testing, likely due to variations in computer hardware. The results underline the importance of examining more than one index to ascertain comparability, as high correlations can present in the context of systematic differences, which are a product of differences between measurement environments. Further work is now needed to examine web-based assessments in clinical populations and in larger samples to improve sensitivity for detecting subtler differences between test settings.