ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
A New Remote Guided Method for Supervised Web-Based Cognitive Testing to Ensure High-Quality Data: Development and Usability Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- A digital intervention for cognitive deficits following COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2024Trial
- Measuring executive functions online: Interactive effects of experimenter presence, instruction feedback, session order, and task difficulty.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Measuring Cognitive Impairments Associated With Schizophrenia in Clinical Practice: Overview of Current Challenges and Future Opportunities.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2025Review
- Reliable Web-Based Auditory Cognitive Testing: Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Observational
- Remote Testing of Reading Comprehension in 8-Year-Old Children: Mode and Setting Effects.Assessment · 2024Article
- Cognitive inflexibility, obsessive-compulsive symptoms and traits and poor post-pandemic adjustment.Neuroscience applied · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Study protocol: How does cognitive flexibility relate to other executive functions and learning in healthy young adults?PloS one · 2023Article
- Validation of a rapid remote digital test for impaired cognition using clinical dementia rating and mini-mental state examination: An observational research study.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- 'Food for Thought'-The Relationship between Diet and Cognition in Breast and Colorectal Cancer Survivors: A Feasibility Study.Nutrients · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe global COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a fundamental reexamination of how human psychological research can be conducted safely and robustly in a new era of digital working and physical distancing. Online web-based testing has risen to the forefront as a promising solution for the rapid mass collection of cognitive data without requiring human contact. However, a long-standing debate exists over the data quality and validity of web-based studies. This study examines the opportunities and challenges afforded by the societal shift toward web-based testing and highlights an urgent need to establish a standard data quality assurance framework for online studies.
objectiveThis study aims to develop and validate a new supervised online testing methodology, remote guided testing (RGT).
methodsA total of 85 healthy young adults were tested on 10 cognitive tasks assessing executive functioning (flexibility, memory, and inhibition) and learning. Tasks were administered either face-to-face in the laboratory (n=41) or online using remote guided testing (n=44) and delivered using identical web-based platforms (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, Inquisit, and i-ABC). Data quality was assessed using detailed trial-level measures (missed trials, outlying and excluded responses, and response times) and overall task performance measures.
resultsThe results indicated that, across all data quality and performance measures, RGT data was statistically-equivalent to in-person data collected in the lab (P>.40 for all comparisons). Moreover, RGT participants out-performed the lab group on measured verbal intelligence (P<.001), which could reflect test environment differences, including possible effects of mask-wearing on communication.
conclusionsThese data suggest that the RGT methodology could help ameliorate concerns regarding online data quality-particularly for studies involving high-risk or rare cohorts-and offer an alternative for collecting high-quality human cognitive data without requiring in-person physical attendance.
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.