ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Neuropsychological Assessment Using Portable Automated Rapid Testing in Cognitively Healthy Older Adults: Test-Retest Reliability Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRemote, scalable cognitive assessment could improve detection and longitudinal monitoring of age-related cognitive change, but few studies have validated comprehensive digital neuropsychological batteries administered entirely at home.
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and short-term test-retest reliability of a remotely delivered digital neuropsychological battery (portable automated rapid testing [PART]) in cognitively healthy older adults.
methodsWe screened 82 English-speaking, cognitively healthy older adults aged 50 to 85 years and mailed configured tablets to participants. Researchers remotely administered a battery of neuropsychological assessments spanning language fluency (Boston Naming Test, verbal fluency: letter "F," supermarket items, and animals), memory (verbal paired associates, word list recall, and logical memory recall), praxis memory (clock drawing and constructional praxis [CP]), and executive functioning (trail making test [TMT]) using the PART app twice, approximately 1 month apart. Task comfortability was summarized with a comfort index based on participants' self-reports after completing each task. Reliability analyses included paired t tests to detect group-level shifts in performance, Pearson correlations for short-term stability, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement (LoA) to quantify bias and within-person variability. Performance across all tasks was also compared to comparative samples from large normative studies using equivalent paper-and-pencil versions of these tasks.
resultsA total of 72 participants completed the first time point (T1), 64 completed the second time point (T2), and the analytic sample comprised a total of 63 participants. Overall comfort was high across sessions (mean comfort index was 88% at T1 and 84% at T2). Memory and executive function measures showed moderate test-retest correlations (r=0.39-0.73), while clock drawing and CP showed low or nonsignificant associations, likely due to ceiling effects. Paired tests indicated small but significant practice effects for verbal paired associates (t
conclusionsPART was well tolerated among healthy older adults and reproduces group-level normative patterns with moderate short-term reliability for several conventional measures. However, nontrivial within-person variability, practice effects, ceiling effects, and wide LoAs for some measures (eg, TMT, CP, and clock drawing) limit interpretation of individual change. Future work should validate alternative digital outcome metrics (eg, stylus interactions and speech recordings), extend sampling to more diverse and lower-education cohorts, and evaluate more ecologically valid designs to improve sensitivity for detecting meaningful within-person cognitive fluctuations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.