Comparison of Neuropsychological Assessment by Videoconference and Face to Face

Abstract

Objective: To compare the administration of neuropsychological tests by teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) and face to face (F-F) in order to determine the feasibility and reliability of TeleNP. Method: At the inclusion visit, all participants underwent a traditional F-F neuropsychological assessment as part of their standard care. Four months after inclusion, they were randomized to undergo an additional neuropsychological assessment either by F-F administration or by TeleNP. Results: A total of 150 adults with cognitive complaints, but with no major cognitive or sensorial impairment were included. At 4 months, 69 participants were randomized in the F-F arm and 71 in TeleNP arm (10 lost in the follow-up). The overall satisfaction was high: 87.1% in the TeleNP arm were “very satisfied”, and 82.9% indicated no preference between F-F and TeleNP. In agreement with previous data from the literature, neuropsychological assessments gave similar results across both administration conditions for a large majority of tests [Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (FCSRT) French version, Mahieux gestural praxis battery, Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), time of completion of the Trail making Test (TMT) A and B, number of errors of the TMT B, Rey complex figure test, categorical et phonological verbal fluency tests] and minor differences for others [80-picture naming test (DO-80), FAB, Digit Span forward and backward and number of errors in the TMT A]. Conclusions: TeleNP is a promising method to be able to test patients as an alternative to F-F condition. Before this procedure can be generalized, it is now necessary to standardize the adaptation of certain tests and to test them in populations with more significant cognitive disorders.

Teleneuropsychology: normative data for the assessment of memory in online settings

“…The study aimed to provide normative data of neuropsychological memory tests performed via videoconference. Several studies described videoconferencing assessments as similar to face-to-face settings [ 6 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 44 ]. The remote setting could expose to many risks and limitations [ 17 , 18 ], as much as several benefits [ 10 , 13 ]: (i) covering long distances; (ii) patients with motor deficits can perform a neuropsychological assessment at their place and maintaining continuity in health and care during emergencies.…”

“…Analysing in detail, most of these studies adapted verbal task tests, such as the Digits Span Forward and Backward, the Boston Naming Test [ 6 , 20 ], and the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test [ 18 ] in adults and senior adults. In a study [ 21 ] carried out in a French memory clinic, patients performed a neuropsychological evaluation two times (i.e., face-to-face and teleneuropsychology). The second assessment took place 4 months later, adopting parallel versions of neuropsychological tests.…”

“…It is necessary to outline a quality methodology to obtain a reliable and accurate cognitive evaluation and recommendations for administration [ 8 , 22 , 23 ]. Therefore, before generalising procedure and application, there is a requirement for new standardised measures and normative data, in healthy or patients, with the same validity of normative data employed in a classic setting [ 21 ]. In fact, the lack of normative data could cause diagnostic errors and adversely affect health and access to treatment [ 22 , 24 ].…”

Videoconference version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: normative data for Quebec-French people aged 50 years and older

“…Many recent publications have shown the validity of videoconference neuropsychological testing compared to face-to-face testing [8][9][10]. A review paper by Marra and collaborators [10] suggests that the remote administration of the MoCA shows good validity compared to its face-to-face administration.…”

An evaluation of the convergent validity of a face‐to‐face and virtual neuropsychological assessment counter balanced

“…They concluded that administering these assessments using telecommunication software provided a valid alternative to face‐to‐face assessments. A study of 150 adults by Gnassounou et al (2021) also found no difference between face‐to‐face and virtual administration of a brief neuropsychological assessment battery composed of the MMSE (Folstein et al, 1975), Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test (French version; Van der Linden et al, 2004), Mahieux Gestural Praxis Battery (Mahieux‐Laurent et al, 2009), Frontal Assessment Battery (Dubois et al, 2000), Trail Making Test (TMT; completion time and errors for part B; Godefroy et al, 2010), Rey–Osterreith Complex Figure (Meyers & Meyers, 1995) and Categorical and Phonological Verbal Fluency Tests (Godefroy et al, 2010). They did however identify small significant differences in the Digit Span Forwards and Backwards (Wechsler, 2008) and the number of errors on the TMT part A (Godefroy et al, 2010).…”