Comparing Traditional and Digitized Cognitive Tests Used in Standard Clinical Evaluation – A Study of the Digital Application Minnemera

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare a new digitized cognitive test battery, Minnemera, with its correspondent traditional paper-based cognitive tests. Eighty-one healthy adults between the ages of 21 and 85 participated in the study. Participants performed the two different test versions (traditional paper-based and digitized) with an interval of four weeks between the tests. Test presentation (the order of the test versions presented) was counterbalanced in order to control for any possible test learning effects. The digitized tests were constructed so that there were only minor differences when compared to the traditional paper-based tests. Test results from the paper-based and digitized versions of the cognitive screening were compared within individuals by means of a correlation analysis and equivalence tests. The effects of demographic variables (age, gender and level of education) and test presentation were explored for each test measure and each test version through linear regression models. For each test measure, a significant correlation between traditional and digitized version was observed ranging between r = 0.34 and r = 0.67 with a median of r = 0.53 (corresponding to a large effect size). Score equivalence was observed for five out of six tests. In line with previous traditional cognitive studies, age was found to be the most prominent predictor of performance in all digitized tests, with younger participants performing better than older adults. Gender was the second strongest predictor, where women outperformed men in tests measuring verbal memory; men performed better than women in tests with a strong visual component. Finally, the educational level of the test subjects had an effect on executive functions, with a higher educational level linked to a better inhibition response and working memory span. This study suggests that the tests in the Minnemera cognitive screening battery are acceptably comparable to the traditional paper-based counterparts.

Swedish Normative Data for Mindmore: A Comprehensive Cognitive Screening Battery, Both Digital and Self-Administrated

“…Together these tests cover five cognitive domains: attention and processing speed, memory, language, visuospatial functions and executive functions. The concordance of the digital and analogue versions has been demonstrated in a previous study with 81 Swedish adults aged 21 to 85 years (Björngrim et al, 2019). The tests were administered in both versions, counterbalanced and with a 4-week interval.…”

“…Moreover, digitised tests potentially facilitate enhanced standardisation of assessment and result calculation (Newman et al, 2018). An equivalence study between the digitised Mindmore tests and the underlying traditional analogue tests showed comparable results between the two (Björngrim et al, 2019). However, complete correspondence of test results between analogue and digital test versions cannot be expected.…”

“…A total of 14 digitised traditional tests are included in the Mindmore application. These are tests clinically accepted in Europe (Maruta et al, 2011), with proven validity and reliability (Lezak et al, 2012), and possible to digitise while retaining correspondence with the traditional test instructions and stimuli (Björngrim et al, 2019).…”

Implementing Remote Memory Clinics to Enhance Clinical Care During and After COVID-19

“…The Mindmore ( ) digitized cognitive test battery has been designed to examine global cognition, processing speed and attention, learning and memory (including working memory, executive function and language. Mindmore was recently tested in 81 healthy controls aged 21-85 years and was found to significantly correlate with traditional measures (median r =.53) ( 58 ).…”

A randomized controlled trial into the cognitive effects of a computer-tailored physical activity intervention in older adults with chronic disease(s)

“…There are no normative data available, as these tests, administered with Inquisit 5 software, cannot be compared to pencil and paper versions of the tests [52,53].…”