2022
DOI: 10.1002/mpr.1922
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Further validation of the THINC‐it tool and extension of the normative data set in a study ofn = 10.019 typical controls

Maria Dalby,
Peter Annas,
John E. Harrison

Abstract: Introduction: We report further validation and normative data for the THINC-Integrated Tool (THINC-it), a measure of cognitive function designed for use with individuals living with Major Depressive Disorder, but which is finding use in further psychiatric and neurological diseases. THINC-it comprises four objective computerised cognitive tests based on traditional psychological paradigms and a version of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire assessment. Methods: Sample size of n = 10.019 typical control study … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…above/below normal population scores to determine the presence of cognitive difficulties across the cognitive modules, however this often resulted in extremely small group sizes. Our median scores across THINC-it® modules indicate worsened cognitive performance than recently reported in an analysis of healthy controls (Dalby et al, 2022). Although this is expected in a cohort of individuals with long-standing major depression, it means that we often had very small group sizes, increasing our risk of Type 1 error (McCelland, Lynch, Irwin, Spiller, & Fitzsimons, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…above/below normal population scores to determine the presence of cognitive difficulties across the cognitive modules, however this often resulted in extremely small group sizes. Our median scores across THINC-it® modules indicate worsened cognitive performance than recently reported in an analysis of healthy controls (Dalby et al, 2022). Although this is expected in a cohort of individuals with long-standing major depression, it means that we often had very small group sizes, increasing our risk of Type 1 error (McCelland, Lynch, Irwin, Spiller, & Fitzsimons, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…All THINC-it ® tasks have validated against paper and pencil versions (McIntyre et al, 2017 ) and are sensitive to change (Dalby, Annas, & Harrison, 2022 ; McIntyre et al, 2020 ). In addition to cognitive domain scores, subscales can be standardised and combined to create a composite score of overall cognitive function (Cha et al, 2017 ), with higher scores representing increased cognitive difficulties.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used a well-defined threshold of scores ±1SD above/below normal population scores to determine the presence of cognitive difficulties across the cognitive modules, however this often resulted in extremely small group sizes. Our median scores across THINC-it® modules indicate worsened cognitive performance than recently reported in an analysis of healthy controls (Dalby et al, 2022). Although this is expected in a cohort of individuals with long-standing major depression, it means that we often had very small group sizes, increasing our risk of Type 1 error (McCelland, Lynch, Irwin, Spiller & Fitzsimons, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…All THINC-it® tasks have validated against paper and pencil versions (McIntyre et al, 2017) and are sensitive to change (McIntyre et al, 2020;Dalby et al, 2022). In addition to cognitive domain scores, subscales can be standardised and combined to create a composite score of overall cognitive function (Cha et al, 2017), with higher scores representing increased cognitive difficulties.…”
Section: 'Objective' Cognitive Difficultymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One limitation is the small sample size of participants included in this study and would require replication considering larger samples. Another is that two of the measures used in the study (the Digit Symbol Substitution Test score and scanpath length) have still to be tested for reliability and validity like the Codebreaker task [31,60]. The effects of possible confounders were also not assessed in details.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%