Cognition test battery: Adjusting for practice and stimulus set effects for varying administration intervals in high performing individuals.
Saved in:
| Title: | Cognition test battery: Adjusting for practice and stimulus set effects for varying administration intervals in high performing individuals. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Basner, Mathias (AUTHOR), Hermosillo, Emanuel (AUTHOR), Nasrini, Jad (AUTHOR), Saxena, Salil (AUTHOR), Dinges, David F. (AUTHOR), Moore, Tyler M. (AUTHOR), Gur, Ruben C. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology. Jul2020, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p516-529. 14p. 3 Charts, 6 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Cognitive testing, Treatment effectiveness, Correction factors, Test design, Electric batteries |
| Abstract: | Practice effects associated with the repeated administration of cognitive tests often confound true therapeutic or experimental effects. Alternate test forms help reduce practice effects, but generating stimulus sets with identical properties can be difficult. The main objective of this study was to disentangle practice and stimulus set effects for Cognition, a battery of 10 brief cognitive tests specifically designed for high-performing populations with 15 unique versions for repeated testing. A secondary objective was to investigate the effects of test-retest interval on practice effects. The 15 versions of Cognition were administered in three groups of 15–16 subjects (total N = 46, mean±SD age 32.5 ± 7.2 years, range 25–54 years, 23 male) in a randomized but balanced fashion with administration intervals of ≥10 days, ≤5 days, or 4 times per day. Mixed effect models were used to investigate linear and logarithmic trends across repeated administrations in key speed and accuracy outcomes, whether these trends differed significantly between administration interval groups, and whether stimulus sets differed significantly in difficulty. Protracted, non-linear practice effects well beyond the second administration were observed for most of the 10 Cognition tests both in accuracy and speed, but test-retest administration interval significantly affected practice effects only for 3 out of the 10 tests and only in the speed domain. Stimulus set effects were observed for the 6 Cognition tests that use unique sets of stimuli. Factors were established that allow for correcting for both practice and stimulus set effects. Practice effects are pronounced and probably under-appreciated in cognitive testing. The correction factors established in this study are a unique feature of the Cognition battery that can help avoid masking practice effects, address noise generated by differences in stimulus set difficulty, and facilitate interpretation of results from studies with repeated assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Practice effects associated with the repeated administration of cognitive tests often confound true therapeutic or experimental effects. Alternate test forms help reduce practice effects, but generating stimulus sets with identical properties can be difficult. The main objective of this study was to disentangle practice and stimulus set effects for Cognition, a battery of 10 brief cognitive tests specifically designed for high-performing populations with 15 unique versions for repeated testing. A secondary objective was to investigate the effects of test-retest interval on practice effects. The 15 versions of Cognition were administered in three groups of 15–16 subjects (total N = 46, mean±SD age 32.5 ± 7.2 years, range 25–54 years, 23 male) in a randomized but balanced fashion with administration intervals of ≥10 days, ≤5 days, or 4 times per day. Mixed effect models were used to investigate linear and logarithmic trends across repeated administrations in key speed and accuracy outcomes, whether these trends differed significantly between administration interval groups, and whether stimulus sets differed significantly in difficulty. Protracted, non-linear practice effects well beyond the second administration were observed for most of the 10 Cognition tests both in accuracy and speed, but test-retest administration interval significantly affected practice effects only for 3 out of the 10 tests and only in the speed domain. Stimulus set effects were observed for the 6 Cognition tests that use unique sets of stimuli. Factors were established that allow for correcting for both practice and stimulus set effects. Practice effects are pronounced and probably under-appreciated in cognitive testing. The correction factors established in this study are a unique feature of the Cognition battery that can help avoid masking practice effects, address noise generated by differences in stimulus set difficulty, and facilitate interpretation of results from studies with repeated assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 13803395 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/13803395.2020.1773765 |
