Skip to main content
eScholarship
Open Access Publications from the University of California

UCSF

UC San Francisco Previously Published Works bannerUCSF

Validity of Online Versus In-Clinic Self-Reported Everyday Cognition Scale

Abstract

Background

Online cognitive assessments are alternatives to in-clinic assessments.

Objectives

We evaluated the relationship between online and in-clinic self-reported Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog).

Methods

In 94 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative and Brain Health Registry (ADNI-BHR) participants, we estimated associations between online and in-clinic Everyday Cognition using Bland-Altman plots and regression. In 472 ADNI participants, we estimated reliability of in-clinic Everyday Cognition completed six months apart using Bland-Altman plots and regression.

Results

Online Everyday Cognition associations: Mean difference was 0.11 (95% limits of agreement: -0.41 to 0.64). In-clinic Everyday Cognition score increased by 0.81 for each online Everyday Cognition score unit increase (R2=0.60). In-clinic Everyday Cognition reliability: Mean difference was 0.01 (95% limits of agreement: -0.61 to 0.62). In-clinic Everyday Cognition score at enrollment increased by 0.79 for each in-clinic Everyday Cognition score unit increase at six months (R2=0.61).

Conclusion

Online Everyday Cognition closely corresponded with in-clinic Everyday Cognition, supporting validity of using online cognitive assessments to more efficiently facilitate Alzheimer's disease research.

Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.

Main Content
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.
Current View