Back

Reliability of remote self-administered web-based digital cognitive measures and comparison to in-person neuropsychological tests: Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and the Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite

Hughes, M. A.; Frank, R. D.; Taylor, R. L.; Fan, W. Z.; Christianson, T. J.; Kremers, W. K.; Stricker, J. L.; Machulda, M. M.; Hassenstab, J.; Mielke, M. M.; Lucas, J. A.; Aduen, P. A.; Day, G. S.; Graff-Radford, N. R.; Jack, C. R.; Graff-Radford, J.; Petersen, R. C.; Stricker, N. H.

2025-09-29 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2025.09.26.25336467 medRxiv
Show abstract

Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSINTRODUCTIONC_ST_ABSWe describe the reliability of remote self-administered digital cognitive measures completed via the Mayo Test Drive (MTD) web-based platform. METHODS1,846 participants (mean age=70, SD=12, range 31-101; 48% male; 96% White; 99% non-Hispanic; 97% cognitively unimpaired) with 2-4 complete MTD sessions at ~7.5-month intervals were included. Test-retest reliability was assessed using single-rating, absolute-agreement, and two-way mixed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) with 95% confidence intervals. ICCs for in-person-administered traditional neuropsychological measures were compared to MTD for a subset of 244 participants. RESULTSReliability was good for the MTD Composite [total ICC = 0.79 (0.77, 0.80)], and moderate-to-good for the primary outcome variables for each MTD subtest [total ICCs 0.70-0.83 for Stricker Learning Span and Symbols]. The reliability of the remote self-administered MTD was similar to in-person-administered cognitive measures. DISCUSSIONMTD showed moderate-to-good reliability, supporting its use in longitudinal monitoring.

Published in Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.