Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39072723›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of psychology2025

Test-retest reliability, practice effects and estimates of change: A study on the Mindmore digital cognitive assessment tool.

Ingvar Bergman, Ludwig Franke Föyen, Anders Gustavsson, Wobbie Van den Hurk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Remote Neuropsychological Testing as an Alternative to Traditional Methods-a Convergent Validity Study.Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Ingvar BergmanTraffic Medicine Center, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3306-0355
Ludwig Franke FöyenMindmore AB, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-9508-605X
Anders GustavssonQuantify Research, Stockholm, Sweden.
Wobbie Van den HurkMindmore AB, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0849-0158

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to establish test-retest reliability and investigate practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool, a digital adaptation of traditional pencil and paper tests designed for self-administration. Additionally, normative change scores for the most frequently used tests were derived. A total of 149 healthy Swedish adults (aged 20-79) completed the test battery twice, 1 month apart. The battery assessed attention and processing speed, memory, language, visuospatial functions, and executive functions. Test-retest reliability, measured by ICC and Spearman coefficients, and practice effects were estimated for 22 main-scores and 33 sub-scores. Regression models were used to assess change in performance while controlling for demographics, computer equipment, testing location (online or in-laboratory) and baseline performance for 12 main-scores and nine sub-scores. Test-retest reliability was good for 11 main-scores (≥0.70), satisfactory for five (0.60-0.69), and minimal for six (<0.60) albeit three having satisfactory sub-scores. Practice effects were observed for tests with a major speed component, but not for reaction time, sustained attention, verbal memory and naming (alternate forms), nor visuospatial functions. Trackpad negatively influenced change for one test. Demographics and testing location did not significantly affect the change scores. Our study provides support for test-retest reliability and practice effects of the Mindmore cognitive assessment tool which were comparable to those of traditional tests. These findings, together with the normative change scores, can aid researchers and clinicians in interpreting test results and distinguishing between normal variations in performance and changes indicative of clinical impairment.

Indexed as

CognitionNeuropsychological TestsPractice, PsychologicalPsychometricsAdultAgedExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultDigital cognitive assessmentneuropsychological change scoresneuropsychological testsonline cognitive testingpractice effectspsychometricstest–retest reliability

Identifiers

PMID39072723
PMCPMC11735254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.