A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study

Joanna Collerton, Daniel Collerton, Yasumichi Arai, Karen Barrass, Martin Eccles, Carol Jagger, Ian McKeith, Brian K. Saxby, Tom Kirkwood, John Bond, Oliver James, Louise Robinson, Thomas Von Zglinicki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean±standard deviation 18±4 minutes vs 26±4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91% vs 100%). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1630-1635
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American Geriatrics Society
Volume55
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 Oct

Fingerprint

Independent Living
Cognition
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Age Groups
Research Personnel
Biological Science Disciplines
Biotechnology
Administrative Personnel
Intelligence
Research
Psychometrics
Biomedical Research
Cohort Studies
Health
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Keywords

  • Aging
  • Assessment
  • Cognition
  • Newcastle 85+ Study
  • Older people

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Cite this

A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study. / Collerton, Joanna; Collerton, Daniel; Arai, Yasumichi; Barrass, Karen; Eccles, Martin; Jagger, Carol; McKeith, Ian; Saxby, Brian K.; Kirkwood, Tom; Bond, John; James, Oliver; Robinson, Louise; Von Zglinicki, Thomas.

In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 55, No. 10, 10.2007, p. 1630-1635.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Collerton, J, Collerton, D, Arai, Y, Barrass, K, Eccles, M, Jagger, C, McKeith, I, Saxby, BK, Kirkwood, T, Bond, J, James, O, Robinson, L & Von Zglinicki, T 2007, 'A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study', Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1630-1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01379.x
Collerton, Joanna ; Collerton, Daniel ; Arai, Yasumichi ; Barrass, Karen ; Eccles, Martin ; Jagger, Carol ; McKeith, Ian ; Saxby, Brian K. ; Kirkwood, Tom ; Bond, John ; James, Oliver ; Robinson, Louise ; Von Zglinicki, Thomas. / A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study. In: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2007 ; Vol. 55, No. 10. pp. 1630-1635.
@article{ed7243292cc94e82b7b4adcf0af57370,
title = "A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95{\%} confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95{\%} CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95{\%} CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95{\%} CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean±standard deviation 18±4 minutes vs 26±4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91{\%} vs 100{\%}). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.",
keywords = "Aging, Assessment, Cognition, Newcastle 85+ Study, Older people",
author = "Joanna Collerton and Daniel Collerton and Yasumichi Arai and Karen Barrass and Martin Eccles and Carol Jagger and Ian McKeith and Saxby, {Brian K.} and Tom Kirkwood and John Bond and Oliver James and Louise Robinson and {Von Zglinicki}, Thomas",
year = "2007",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01379.x",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "1630--1635",
journal = "Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
issn = "0002-8614",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of computerized and pencil-and-paper tasks in assessing cognitive function in community-dwelling older people in the Newcastle 85+ pilot study

AU - Collerton, Joanna

AU - Collerton, Daniel

AU - Arai, Yasumichi

AU - Barrass, Karen

AU - Eccles, Martin

AU - Jagger, Carol

AU - McKeith, Ian

AU - Saxby, Brian K.

AU - Kirkwood, Tom

AU - Bond, John

AU - James, Oliver

AU - Robinson, Louise

AU - Von Zglinicki, Thomas

PY - 2007/10

Y1 - 2007/10

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean±standard deviation 18±4 minutes vs 26±4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91% vs 100%). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To compare the acceptability and feasibility of computerized and pencil-and-paper tests of cognitive function in 85-year-old people. DESIGN: Group comparison of participants randomly allocated to pencil-and-paper (Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales) or computerized (Cognitive Drug Research) tests of verbal memory and attention. SETTING: The Newcastle 85+ Pilot Study was the precursor to the Newcastle 85+ Study a United Kingdom Medical Research Council/Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council cohort study of health and aging in the oldest-old age group. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-one community-dwelling individuals aged 85. MEASUREMENTS: Participant and researcher acceptability, completion rates, time taken, validity as cognitive measures, and psychometric utility. RESULTS: Participants randomized to computerized tests were less likely to rate the cognitive function tests as difficult (odds ratio (OR)=0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.07-0.39), stressful (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.45), or unacceptable (OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.08-0.48) than those randomized to pencil-and-paper tests. Researchers were also less likely to rate participants as being distressed in the computer test group (OR=0.19, 95% CI=0.07-0.46). Pencil-and-paper tasks took participants less time to complete (mean±standard deviation 18±4 minutes vs 26±4 minutes) but had fewer participants who could complete all tasks (91% vs 100%). Both types of task were equally good measures of cognitive function. CONCLUSION: Computerized and pencil-and-paper tests are both feasible and useful means of assessing cognitive function in the oldest-old age group. Computerized tests are more acceptable to participants and administrators.

KW - Aging

KW - Assessment

KW - Cognition

KW - Newcastle 85+ Study

KW - Older people

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34848924060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34848924060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01379.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01379.x

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 1630

EP - 1635

JO - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

JF - Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

SN - 0002-8614

IS - 10

ER -