ArticleArchives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists2025
User Experience of a (Semi-) Automated Cognitive Phone-Based Assessment Within a Memory Clinic Population.
Article in Archives of clinical neuropsychology : the official journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of remote and unsupervised digital cognitive assessments in preclinical Alzheimer's disease.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe examined the user experience in different modalities (face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based, and fully automated phone-based) of cognitive testing in people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment.
methodA total of 67 participants from the memory clinic of the Maastricht University Medical Center+ participated in the study. The study consisted of cognitive tests in different modalities, namely, face-to-face, semi-automated phone-based guided by a researcher, and fully automated phone-based without the involvement of a researcher. After each assessment, a user experience questionnaire was administered, including questions about, for example, satisfaction, simplicity, and missing personal contact, on a seven-point Likert scale. Non-parametric tests were used to compare user experiences across different modalities.
resultsIn all modalities, user experiences were rated above average. The face-to-face ratings were comparable to the ratings of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, except for the satisfaction and recommendation items, which were rated higher for the face-to-face assessment. The face-to-face assessment was preferred above the fully automated phone-based assessment on all items. In general, the semi- and fully automated phone-based assessments were comparable (simplicity, conceivability, quality of sound, visiting the hospital, and missing personal contact), while on all the other items, the semi-automated phone-based assessment was preferred.
conclusionsUser experience was rated high within all modalities. Simplicity, conceivability, comfortability, and participation scores were comparable in the semi-automated phone-based and face-to-face assessment. Based on these findings and earlier research on validation of the semi-automated phone-based assessment, the semi-automated assessment could be useful for screening for clinical trials, and after more research, in clinical practice.
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.