Ultra-brief Assessment of Working Memory Capacity: Ambulatory Assessment Study Using Smartphones.
EMA
ecological momentary assessment
measurement burst design
mobile cognitive assessment
mobile phone
working memory capacity
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jan 2023
27 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
09
06
2022
accepted:
07
12
2022
revised:
16
11
2022
entrez:
27
1
2023
pubmed:
28
1
2023
medline:
28
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development of mobile technology with substantial computing power (ie, smartphones) has enabled the adaptation of performance-based cognitive assessments to remote administration and novel intensive longitudinal study designs (eg, measurement burst designs). Although an "ambulatory" cognitive assessment paradigm may provide new research opportunities, the adaptation of conventional measures to a mobile format conducive to intensive repeated measurement involves balancing measurement precision, administration time, and procedural consistency. Across 3 studies, we adapted "complex span" tests of working memory capacity (WMC) for ultra-brief, smartphone-based administration and examined their reliability, sufficiency, and associations with full-length, laboratory-based computerized administrations. In a laboratory-based setting, study 1 examined associations between ultra-brief smartphone adaptations of the operation span, symmetry span, and rotation span tasks and full-length computerized versions. In study 2, we conducted a 4-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study (4 assessments per day), where we examined the reliability of ultra-brief, ambulatory administrations of each task. In study 3, we conducted a 7-day EMA study (5 assessments per day) involving the ultra-brief rotation span task, where we examined reliability in the absence of extensive onboarding and training. Measurement models in study 1 suggest that comparable estimates of latent WMC can be recovered from ultra-brief complex span task performance on smartphones. Significant correlations between the ultra-brief tasks and respective full-length versions were observed in study 1 and 2, ranging from r=0.4 to r=0.57. Results of study 2 and study 3 suggest that reliable between-person estimates of operation span, symmetry span, rotation span, and latent WMC can be obtained in 2-3 ultra-brief administrations (equivalent to <1 day of testing in an EMA study design). The results of study 3 replicated our findings, showing that reliable between-person estimates of rotation span may be obtained in as few as 2 ultra-brief administrations in the absence of extensive onboarding and training. In addition, the modification of task parameterization for study 3 improved the estimates of reliability of within-person change. Ultra-brief administration of complex span tasks on smartphones in a measurement burst design can generate highly reliable cross-sectional estimates of WMC. Considerations for future mobile cognitive assessment designs and parameterizations are discussed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The development of mobile technology with substantial computing power (ie, smartphones) has enabled the adaptation of performance-based cognitive assessments to remote administration and novel intensive longitudinal study designs (eg, measurement burst designs). Although an "ambulatory" cognitive assessment paradigm may provide new research opportunities, the adaptation of conventional measures to a mobile format conducive to intensive repeated measurement involves balancing measurement precision, administration time, and procedural consistency.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Across 3 studies, we adapted "complex span" tests of working memory capacity (WMC) for ultra-brief, smartphone-based administration and examined their reliability, sufficiency, and associations with full-length, laboratory-based computerized administrations.
METHODS
METHODS
In a laboratory-based setting, study 1 examined associations between ultra-brief smartphone adaptations of the operation span, symmetry span, and rotation span tasks and full-length computerized versions. In study 2, we conducted a 4-day ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study (4 assessments per day), where we examined the reliability of ultra-brief, ambulatory administrations of each task. In study 3, we conducted a 7-day EMA study (5 assessments per day) involving the ultra-brief rotation span task, where we examined reliability in the absence of extensive onboarding and training.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Measurement models in study 1 suggest that comparable estimates of latent WMC can be recovered from ultra-brief complex span task performance on smartphones. Significant correlations between the ultra-brief tasks and respective full-length versions were observed in study 1 and 2, ranging from r=0.4 to r=0.57. Results of study 2 and study 3 suggest that reliable between-person estimates of operation span, symmetry span, rotation span, and latent WMC can be obtained in 2-3 ultra-brief administrations (equivalent to <1 day of testing in an EMA study design). The results of study 3 replicated our findings, showing that reliable between-person estimates of rotation span may be obtained in as few as 2 ultra-brief administrations in the absence of extensive onboarding and training. In addition, the modification of task parameterization for study 3 improved the estimates of reliability of within-person change.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Ultra-brief administration of complex span tasks on smartphones in a measurement burst design can generate highly reliable cross-sectional estimates of WMC. Considerations for future mobile cognitive assessment designs and parameterizations are discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36705953
pii: v7i1e40188
doi: 10.2196/40188
pmc: PMC9919550
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e40188Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R00 AG056670
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : T32 AG049676
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : U2C AG060408
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
©Jonathan G Hakun, Nelson A Roque, Courtney R Gerver, Eric S Cerino. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 27.01.2023.
Références
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Mar;16(3):174-80
pubmed: 22336729
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Jan;145:1-9
pubmed: 24240136
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004 Jun;133(2):189-217
pubmed: 15149250
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010 Nov;65(6):698-705
pubmed: 20732931
Psychol Aging. 2014 Mar;29(1):103-14
pubmed: 24660800
Mem Cognit. 2015 Feb;43(2):226-36
pubmed: 25217113
Assessment. 2018 Jan;25(1):14-30
pubmed: 27084835
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 23;9(12):e112197
pubmed: 25536290
Clin Neuropsychol. 2020 May;34(4):678-699
pubmed: 32189568
Psychol Aging. 2006 Sep;21(3):545-57
pubmed: 16953716
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008 Oct;95(4):962-77
pubmed: 18808271
Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Oct;12(5):769-86
pubmed: 16523997
Behav Res Methods. 2015 Dec;47(4):1343-1355
pubmed: 25479734
Nat Neurosci. 2014 Mar;17(3):347-56
pubmed: 24569831
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2008;4:1-32
pubmed: 18509902
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Jul 03;15:146
pubmed: 26138700
Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Dec;7(12):547-52
pubmed: 14643371
Emotion. 2020 Jun;20(4):677-699
pubmed: 31008618
Emotion. 2022 Apr;22(3):418-429
pubmed: 32463277
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Jan;35(1):196-204
pubmed: 19210090
Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):637-71
pubmed: 12613671
Emotion. 2012 Jun;12(3):605-17
pubmed: 21787075
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2006 Jul;32(7):917-29
pubmed: 16738025
J Pediatr Psychol. 2017 Nov 1;42(10):1087-1107
pubmed: 28475765
Occup Environ Med. 1998 Oct;55(10):651-6
pubmed: 9930084
Cogn Psychol. 2014 Jun;71:1-26
pubmed: 24531497
Innov Aging. 2019 Jan 01;3(1):igy038
pubmed: 30619948
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2020 Dec;72(12):1669-1677
pubmed: 31609548
Psychol Sci. 2008 Nov;19(11):1071-7
pubmed: 19076475
BMJ. 2010 Jun 23;340:c2289
pubmed: 20573762
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Nov;38(6):1765-72
pubmed: 22468805
Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Oct;19(5):779-819
pubmed: 22715024
Assessment. 2020 Dec;27(8):1683-1698
pubmed: 30198310
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003 Mar;132(1):47-70
pubmed: 12656297