ArticleJMIR formative research2019
The Internet-Based Cognitive Assessment Tool: System Design and Feasibility Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arabic validation and adaptation of the Screen for Cognitive Impairment in Psychiatry (SCIP-A) in university students: a pilot study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Accuracy of Speech-to-Text Transcription in a Digital Cognitive Assessment for Older Adults.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Using Cognitive Screeners for Adolescents and Young Adults With Bipolar Disorder.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025Article
- Clinical practice guidelines on cognitive impairment in bipolar disorders - Assessment and management.Indian journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Observational
- The current state of artificial intelligence-augmented digitized neurocognitive screening test.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2023Review
- A critical overview of tools for assessing cognition in bipolar disorder.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2022Review
- Reliability and Validity of a Home-Based Self-Administered Computerized Test of Learning and Memory Using Speech Recognition.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2022Article
- The Application of Human-Centered Design Approaches in Health Research and Innovation: A Narrative Review of Current Practices.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2021Review
- Testing a Novel Web-Based Neurocognitive Battery in the General Community: Validation and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- The landscape of cognitive function in recovered COVID-19 patients.Journal of psychiatric research · 2020Article
- The Ubiquitous Cognitive Assessment Tool for Smartwatches: Design, Implementation, and Evaluation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersistent cognitive impairment is prevalent in unipolar and bipolar disorders and is associated with decreased quality of life and psychosocial dysfunction. The screen for cognitive impairment in psychiatry (SCIP) test is a validated paper-and-pencil instrument for the assessment of cognition in affective disorders. However, there is no digital cognitive screening tool for the brief and accurate assessment of cognitive impairments in this patient group.
objectiveIn this paper, we present the design process and feasibility study of the internet-based cognitive assessment tool (ICAT) that is designed based on the cognitive tasks of the SCIP. The aims of this feasibility study were to perform the following tasks among healthy individuals: (1) evaluate the usability of the ICAT, (2) investigate the feasibility of the ICAT as a patient-administered cognitive assessment tool, and (3) examine the performance of automatic speech recognition (ASR) for the assessment of verbal recall.
methodsThe ICAT was developed in a user-centered design process. The cognitive measures of the ICAT were immediate and delayed recall, working memory, and psychomotor speed. Usability and feasibility studies were conducted separately with 2 groups of healthy individuals (N=21 and N=19, respectively). ICAT tests were available in the English and Danish languages. The participants were asked to fill in the post study system usability questionnaire (PSSUQ) upon completing the ICAT test. Verbal recall in the ICAT was assessed using ASR, and the performance evaluation criterion was word error rate (WER). A Pearson 2-tailed correlation analysis significant at the .05 level was applied to investigate the association between the SCIP and ICAT scores.
resultsThe overall psychometric factors of PSSUQ for both studies gave scores above 4 (out of 5). The analysis of the feasibility study revealed a moderate to strong correlation between the total scores of the SCIP and ICAT (r=0.63; P=.009). There were also moderate to strong correlations between the SCIP and ICAT subtests for immediate verbal recall (r=0.67; P=.002) and psychomotor speed (r=0.71; P=.001). The associations between the respective subtests for working memory, executive function, and delayed recall, however, were not statistically significant. The corresponding WER for English and Danish responses were 17.8% and 6.3%, respectively.
conclusionsThe ICAT is the first digital screening instrument modified from the SCIP using Web-based technology and ASR. There was good accuracy of the ASR for verbal memory assessment. The moderate correlation between the ICAT and SCIP scores suggests that the ICAT is a valid tool for assessing cognition, although this should be confirmed in a larger study with greater statistical power. Taken together, the ICAT seems to be a valid Web-based cognitive assessment tool that, after some minor modifications and further validation, may be used to screen for cognitive impairment in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.