Development of a real-world simulated instrument for evaluating visuospatial working memory: a preliminary psychometric study on older adults

Abstract

Background A prevalent challenge in neuropsychological assessment, particularly when utilizing instruments designed for controlled laboratory environments, is that the outcomes may not correspond to an individual’s real-life status. Accordingly, assessments of visuospatial working memory (VSWM) conducted in such settings might fail to capture certain facets of this function, as it operates in real life. On the other hand, entirely ecological assessments may risk compromising internal validity. This study aimed to develop an intermediate mode of assessment that measures VSWM in older adults by employing a setting, a task, and a response format that aligns closely with both laboratory and ecological assessments. Furthermore, a preliminary investigation was carried out to study the variations in spatial cognition among different demographic groups. Methods In a two-session study, 77 healthy older adults, eight patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and seven patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) were recruited to complete the wayfinding questionnaire (WQ), the Corsi block-tapping task (CBTT), and the Spatial Memory Table (SMT). The SMT is a novel instrument developed specifically for this study, aiming to provide a more accurate measure of VSWM performance in older adults’ everyday life. Test-retest and split-half reliabilities, as well as the face, content, concurrent, convergent, and known-groups validities, were analyzed to investigate the psychometric properties of the SMT. Results The analyses were mainly centered on studying the psychometric properties of the SMT. Test-retest reliability (r = .753, p < .001) and split-half reliability (ρSC = 0.747) were found to be acceptable. Concurrent validity using CBTT (r = .264, p = .021), convergent validity using WQ subscales (navigation and orientation: r = .282, p = .014; distance estimation: r = .261, p = .024), and known-groups validity using the SMT scores among people with MCI and AD (χ2 = 35.194, df = 2, p < .001) were also indicative of the instrument’s good validity. Data analysis also revealed acceptable levels of face validity (U = 4.50; p = .095) and content validity (CVR ≥ 0.60). As a result of comparing VSWM and wayfinding variables across genders and education levels, a significant difference was observed for navigation and orientation and spatial anxiety between women and men (p < .05). None of the variables were different among education levels. Conclusion The SMT was found to be a reliable and valid tool for measuring VSWM performance in older adults. Given these findings, the SMT can be regarded as a measure that sufficiently approximates both laboratory and real-life demands for VSWM. Additionally, the instrument demonstrated a preliminary acceptable capacity to differentiate between healthy individuals and those with MCI and AD.