ArticleAssessment2024
Validation of Self-Administered Visual and Verbal Episodic Memory Tasks in Healthy Controls and a Clinical Sample.
Article in Assessment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telehealth enabled neuropsychological testing (TENT): a new platform for examiner-led, digital cognitive assessment.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Review
- Automated detection of cognitive impairment in clinical practice.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Utility of the Brief Assessment of Cognitive Health (BACH) computerized screening tool in identifying MS-related cognitive impairment.Multiple sclerosis and related disorders · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the performance characteristics, construct validity, and reliability of two computerized, self-administered verbal and visual recognition memory tests based on the Remember-Know paradigm. Around 250 healthy control participants and 440 patients referred for neuropsychological assessment used an iPad to complete the Words and Faces recognition memory tests before or after concurrent neuropsychological testing. Performance accuracy was high but without ceiling effects. Education, but not age, was related to overall performance for both samples while the influence of gender and race differed across samples. In the clinical sample, overall performance was worse in those patients demonstrating memory impairment on clinical assessment. Words and Faces subtests demonstrated the strongest correlations with neuropsychological measures of verbal and nonverbal memory, respectively. Both showed moderate correlations with processing speed while Faces was also correlated with visuospatial skills. The memory tests showed good test-retest reliability over two testing sessions. These findings demonstrate acceptable psychometric properties in clinical and community samples and suggest that this computerized format is feasible for memory assessment in clinical contexts.
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.