Cited by 436Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review

Open access
Wild, Katherine, Howieson, Diane, Webbe, Frank, Seelye, Adriana, Kaye, Jeffrey·2008·Alzheimer's & Dementia

Abstract

Background: Early detection of cognitive decline in the elderly has become of heightened importance in parallel with the recent advances in therapeutics. Computerized assessment might be uniquely suited to early detection of changes in cognition in the elderly. We present here a systematic review of the status of computer‐based cognitive testing, focusing on detection of cognitive decline in the aging population. Methods: All studies purporting to assess or detect age‐related changes in cognition or early dementia/mild cognitive impairment by means of computerized testing were included. Each test battery was rated on availability of normative data, level of evidence for test validity and reliability, comprehensiveness, and usability. All published studies relevant to a particular computerized test were read by a minimum of two reviewers, who completed rating forms containing the abovementioned criteria. Results: Of the 18 test batteries identified from the initial search, 11 were appropriate to cognitive testing in the elderly and were subjected to systematic review. Of those 11, five were either developed specifically for application with the elderly or have been used extensively with that population. Even within the computerized testing genre, great variability existed in manner of administration, ranging from fully examiner‐administered to fully self‐administered. All tests had at least minimal reliability and validity data, commonly reported in peer‐reviewed articles. However, level of rigor of validity testing varied widely. Conclusion: All test batteries exhibited some of the strengths of computerized cognitive testing: standardization of administration and stimulus presentation, accurate measures of response latencies, automated comparison in real time with an individual's prior performance as well as with age‐related norms, and efficiencies of staffing and cost. Some, such as the Mild Cognitive Impairment Screen, adapted complicated scoring algorithms to enhance the information gathered from already existing tests. Others, such as CogState, used unique interfaces and subtests. We found that although basic indices of psychometric properties were typically addressed, sufficient variability exists that currently available computerized test batteries must be judged on a case‐by‐case basis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jalz.2008.07.003

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two reviews about assessing or detecting cognitive changes employing computerized testing in the elderly were also highly cited in this field.

    “Two reviews about assessing or detecting cognitive changes employing computerized testing in the elderly were also highly cited in this field (43, 44)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wild, K., Howieson, D., Webbe, F., Seelye, A., & Kaye, J.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Florida Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Wild, Katherine
Venue
Alzheimer's & Dementia
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-11
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
428-437
ISSN
  • 1552-5260 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5279
OpenAlex
W2085187999
Cited by
436
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 18
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alzheimer s & Dementia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P30AG008017, P30AG024978)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
computerized cognitive assessment, age-related cognitive decline
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Cognition Disorders, Dementia, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review