Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38129589›Full record

ArticleNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2024

Verbal and non-verbal recognition memory assessment: validation of a computerized version of the Recognition Memory Test.

Elena Baruzzo, Stefano Terruzzi, Beatrice Feder, Costanza Papagno, Daniela Smirni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elena BaruzzoCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences-CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy. elena.baruzzo@unitn.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8260-2280
Stefano TerruzziCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences-CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7166-3766
Beatrice FederCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences-CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9892-8688
Costanza PapagnoCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences-CIMeC, University of Trento, Rovereto, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3659-6294
Daniela SmirniDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4410-2047

Funding

Ministero della Salute RF-2019-12369567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of computerized devices for neuropsychological assessment (CNADs) as an effective alternative to the traditional pencil-and-paper modality has recently increased exponentially, both in clinical practice and research, especially due to the pandemic. However, several authors underline that the computerized modality requires the same psychometric validity as "in-presence" tests. The current study aimed at building and validating a computerized version of the verbal and non-verbal recognition memory test (RMT) for words, unknown faces and buildings.

methodsSeventy-two healthy Italian participants, with medium-high education and ability to proficiently use computerized systems, were enrolled. The sample was subdivided into six groups, one for each age decade. Twelve neurological patients with mixed aetiology, age and educational level were also recruited. Both the computerized and the paper-and-pencil versions of the RMT were administered in two separate sessions.

resultsIn healthy participants, the computerized and the paper-and-pencil versions of the RMT showed statistical equivalence for words, unknown faces and buildings. In the neurological patients, no statistical difference was found between the performance at the two versions of the RMT. A moderate-to-good inter-rater reliability between the two versions was also found in both samples. Finally, the computerized version of the RMT was perceived as acceptable by both healthy participants and neurological patients at System Usability Scale (SUS).

conclusionThe computerized version of the RMT can be used as a reliable alternative to the traditional version.

Indexed as

Recognition, PsychologyEducational StatusHumansNeuropsychological TestsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsComputerized assessmentDigital assessmentNeuropsychological assessmentRecognition Memory TestRMT

Identifiers

PMID38129589
PMCPMC11021307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.