Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
IntroductionThe Trail Making Test (TMT) is an important test when assessing for cognitive difficulties in people with Parkinson's Disease (PD). However, the pencil-and-paper format can be susceptible to administration and scoring errors and may disproportionately reflect motor impairments rather than cognitive performance. The current study sought to evaluate the reliability and diagnostic accuracy of two novel computerized versions of the TMT: iTMT-Tap and iTMT-Drag.MethodThis study used a quasi-experimental diagnostic accuracy design, and included 34 healthy controls, 28 people with Parkinson's disease with normal cognition (PD-NC), and 31 people with Parkinson's disease mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI). Participants were administered a short battery of cognitive tests, including three counterbalanced versions of the TMT (traditional TMT, iTMT-Tap & iTMT-Drag). Additionally, the iTMT-Tap and iTMT-Drag were readministered following a brief break.ResultsBoth the iTMT-Tap and iTMT-Drag demonstrated adequate convergent validity and retest reliability and achieved acceptable classification accuracy for identifying PD-MCI. The current study identified hidden indices of measurement which may minimize administration time or the confounding impact of motor functioning, and these indices achieved fair diagnostic accuracy also.ConclusionThe results of this research suggest that the iTMT-Tap and iTMT-Drag may be a valid substitute for the traditional TMT, and subject to further validation, could be a useful addition to clinical practice. Recommendations for future research and subsequent clinical deployment are discussed.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.