Validation of a digital, tablet-based version of the Trail Making Test in the ∆elta platform.

Using digital technology for neuropsychological assessment is gaining popularity in both clinical and research settings. Digital neuropsychology offers many benefits over the traditional paper-pencil assessments; however, their comparability requires further validation. The aim of this study was to compare a digital, tablet-based Trail Making Test to the standard paper version. In a within-subject design, 108 healthy adults completed both digital and paper Trail Making Test in a counterbalanced order. Each participant also performed other tasks measuring core executive abilities (inhibition, working memory, and flexibility) on the tablet. Our findings indicated that the Trail Making Test performance on the two different modalities correlated significantly. Furthermore, correlations of Trail Making Test performance with other cognitive tasks revealed that digital Trail Making Test is comparable with the paper version. However, the modality had a significant effect on Trail Making Test performance; that is, participants were generally faster on the digital platform. Taken together, our findings suggest that with new normative data, traditional Trail Making Test can be adapted successfully to a digital platform.

Digitization of neuropsychological diagnostics: a pilot study to compare three paper-based and digitized cognitive assessments.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The number of people suffering from dementia is increasing worldwide and so is the need for reliable and economical diagnostic instruments. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the processing times of the neuropsychological tests Trail Making Tests A and B (TMT-A/B) and Color-Word Interference Test (CWIT), which were performed in both digital and paper versions. METHODS: The pilot study was conducted among 50 healthy participants (age 65-83 years) using a randomized crossover design. The correlations and differences in the individual processing times of the two test versions were statistically analyzed. Further research questions concerned the influence of the individual usage of technology and the technology commitment of participants as well as the influence of the assessed usability on participants' performance. RESULTS: Between the two versions (paper-based vs. digital) statistically significant correlations were found in all tests, e.g., TMT-A r(48) = 0.63, p < 0.01; TMT-B rs(48) = 0.77, p < 0.001). The mean value comparison showed statistically significant differences, e.g., interference table (CWIT) t(49) = 11.24, p < 0.01). Correlations with medium effect were found between the differences in processing times and the individual usage of computer (e.g., rs(48) = - 0.31) and smartphone (rs(48) = - 0.29) and between the processing times of the TMT-B and the usability (rs(48) = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The high correlations between the test procedures appear promising. However, the differences found in the processing times of the two test versions require validation and standardization of digitized test procedures before they can be used in practice.