SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Validating virtual administration of neuropsychological testing in Parkinson disease: a pilot study.

Sci Rep · 2023-09-27

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-42934-0PMID: 37758767

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

COVID-19 has highlighted the need for remote cognitive testing, but the reliability and validity of virtual cognitive testing in Parkinson disease (PD) is unknown. Therefore, we assessed PD participants enrolled in an observational, cognition-focused study with an extensive cognitive battery completed both in-person and via video conference close in time. Data for 35 PD participants with normal cognition to mild dementia were analyzed. Only one test (semantic verbal fluency) demonstrated a difference in score by administration type, with a significantly better score virtually. Only three tests demonstrated good reliability for in-person versus virtual testing, but reliability values for visit 1 versus visit 2 were similarly low overall. Trail Making Test B was successfully administered virtually to only 18 participants due to technical issues. Virtual and in-person cognitive testing generate similar scores at the group level, but with poor to moderate reliability for most tests. Mode of test administration, learning effects, and technical difficulties explained little of the low test-retest reliability, indicating possible significant short-term variability in cognitive performance in PD in general, which has implications for clinical care and research. In-person cognitive testing with a neuropsychologist remains the gold standard, and it remains to be determined if virtual cognitive testing is feasible in PD.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.