Construction of a computerized adaptive test (CAT-CCNB) for efficient neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment

Moore, Tyler M.; Sandro, Akira Di; Scott, J. Cobb; Lopez, Katherine; Ruparel, Kosha; Njokweni, Lucky J; Santra, Satrajit; Conway, David S; Port, Allison M.; D'Errico, Lisa; Rush, Sage; Wolf, Daniel H.; Calkins, Monica E.; Gur, Raquel E.; Gur, Ruben C.

doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109795

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For performance-based measures, co-norming of premorbid estimators with current performance measures allows for personalized, idiographic analysis of changes in cognitive ability. New tests are currently being developed and published, such as the Penn Reading Test, which is the premorbid estimation task included in the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery [ 124 ]. That test is non-proprietary and can be accessed by anybody wishing to develop it further.…”

Section: Conclusion and Tentative Suggestions To Achieve More Accurat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

Pluck

2023

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research and practice in clinical neurosciences often involve cognitive assessment. However, this has traditionally used a nomothetic approach, comparing the performance of patients to normative samples. This method of defining abnormality places the average test performance of neurologically healthy individuals at its center. However, evidence suggests that neurological ‘abnormalities’ are very common, as is the diversity of cognitive abilities. The veneration of central tendency in cognitive assessment, i.e., equating typicality with healthy or ideal, is, I argue, misguided on neurodiversity, bio-evolutionary, and cognitive neuroscientific grounds. Furthermore, the use of average performance as an anchor point for normal performance is unreliable in practice and frequently leads to the mischaracterization of cognitive impairments. Examples are explored of how individuals who are already vulnerable for socioeconomic reasons can easily be over-pathologized. At a practical level, by valuing diversity rather than typicality, cognitive assessments can become more idiographic and focused on change at the level of the individual. The use of existing methods that approach cognitive assessment ideographically is briefly discussed, including premorbid estimation methods and informant reports. Moving the focus away from averageness to valuing diversity for both clinical cognitive assessments and inclusion of diverse groups in research is, I argue, a more just and effective way forward for clinical neurosciences.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Tentative Suggestions To Achieve More Accurat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

Pluck

2023

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A clinical example is the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) that enables efficient, fixed precision assessment of depression, anxiety, self-reported cognitive ability/dysfunction, and more (https:// www.healthmeasures.net/resource-center/measurement-science/ computer-adaptive-tests-cats). Unfortunately, CAT research has seldom been applied to neuropsychological assessment, with a few exceptions (Moore et al, 2015(Moore et al, , 2023Yudien et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computerized adaptive test strategies for the matrix reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV)

Reise¹,

Wong²,

Block³

et al. 2023

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Most neuropsychological tests were developed without the benefit of modern psychometric theory. We used item response theory (IRT) methods to determine whether a widely used test – the 26-item Matrix Reasoning subtest of the WAIS-IV – might be used more efficiently if it were administered using computerized adaptive testing (CAT). Method: Data on the Matrix Reasoning subtest from 2197 participants enrolled in the National Neuropsychology Network (NNN) were analyzed using a two-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model. Simulated CAT results were generated to examine optimal short forms using fixed-length CATs of 3, 6, and 12 items and scores were compared to the original full subtest score. CAT models further explored how many items were needed to achieve a selected precision of measurement (standard error ≤ .40). Results: The fixed-length CATs of 3, 6, and 12 items correlated well with full-length test results (with r = .90, .97 and .99, respectively). To achieve a standard error of .40 (approximate reliability = .84) only 3–7 items had to be administered for a large percentage of individuals. Conclusions: This proof-of-concept investigation suggests that the widely used Matrix Reasoning subtest of the WAIS-IV might be shortened by more than 70% in most examinees while maintaining acceptable measurement precision. If similar savings could be realized in other tests, the accessibility of neuropsychological assessment might be markedly enhanced, and more efficient time use could lead to broader subdomain assessment.

show abstract

Biomarker Methodologies: A NIMH Perspective

Grabb,

Brady

2024

Advances in Neurobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Construction of a computerized adaptive test (CAT-CCNB) for efficient neurocognitive and clinical psychopathology assessment

Cited by 9 publications

References 86 publications

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

The Misguided Veneration of Averageness in Clinical Neuroscience: A Call to Value Diversity over Typicality

Computerized adaptive test strategies for the matrix reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV)

Biomarker Methodologies: A NIMH Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About