ABSTRACT
Objective: Digital provision of cognitive tests like the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) has the potential to significantly increase access to important assessments. However, limited empirical evidence exists for the equivalence of telehealth and face-to-face administration. Presently test publishers recommend not administering subtests with stimulus materials that require manipulation via telehealth. Therefore, this study evaluated the equivalence of a telehealth administration procedure of the WAIS-IV with face-to-face administration. Method: A randomized repeated measures design included a sample of N = 28 participants with typical cognitive functioning, predominantly female (61%), aged 21 years (SD = 3.65), and identified as Australian (79%). Results: Our analysis showed that the point estimates of mean differences for indices and subtests (except PSI and Symbol Search) between face-to-face and telehealth applications were smaller than the smallest effect size of interest (SESOI). Analysis of 90% CIs around the mean difference showed the PRI Index and subtests Vocabulary, Information, and Arithmetic were statistically equivalent, while FSIQ, VCI, FRI, WMI indices, and other seven subtests were not statistically equivalent. For Null Hypothesis Significance Tests, the indices and all subtests were not significantly different from zero. Conclusions: These findings show a telehealth administration of the WAIS-IV provides scores similar to those collected in face-to-face administration, and observed differences were smaller than the difference expected due to measurement error. However, psychologists are cautioned not to solely rely on test scores when formulating outcomes but use clinical judgement with awareness of potential (albeit small) errors introduced by telehealth testing.
This article evaluates whether the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition, administered in an online format produces equivalent results to the traditional face-to-face administration of the test. The findings provided evidence of equivalence since differences between these administration methods (i.e. face-to-face vs. online format) were not meaningful. Guidelines are provided regarding how psychologists can use the test in a telehealth context, to continue cognitive evaluations for individuals with limited access to face-to-face health services.
