Premium
P1‐353: Establishing Equivalence of Electronic Clinician‐Reported Outcome Measures
Author(s) -
Feaster H Todd,
Fuller Rebecca L.M.,
McNamara Cynthia W.,
Lenderking William R.,
Edgar Chris J.,
Rylands Angela,
Sabatino Don,
Miller David
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.1104
Subject(s) - equivalence (formal languages) , usability , documentation , electronic data capture , debriefing , computer science , scale (ratio) , data collection , process management , psychology , medicine , medical education , mathematics , engineering , statistics , discrete mathematics , human–computer interaction , quantum mechanics , programming language , physics
pentagon drawing: t (53) 1⁄4 2.016, p < .05; for the four ADAS-Cog drawings: t (53) 1⁄4 2.89, p < .01. Subjects were able to copy designs with more accuracy on paper as compared to the tablet. Conclusions: Completing praxis tasks on a tablet computer resulted in significantly lower scores as compared to paper and pencil techniques. These methodologies do not seem to be equivalent. The subjects in this study were young, healthy normals and results with an older, demented population with less experience using tablet technology would presume to be increasingly detrimental. More research is needed to fully understand the impact of tablet technology on traditional assessment of cognition in Alzheimer’s disease.