The DOI matches its Crossref record; 90 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computerized Neuropsychological Assessment Devices: Joint Position Paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology
Open accessAbstract
This joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology sets forth our position on appropriate standards and conventions for computerized neuropsychological assessment devices (CNADs). In this paper, we first define CNADs and distinguish them from examiner-administered neuropsychological instruments. We then set forth position statements on eight key issues relevant to the development and use of CNADs in the healthcare setting. These statements address (a) device marketing and performance claims made by developers of CNADs; (b) issues involved in appropriate end-users for administration and interpretation of CNADs; (c) technical (hardware/software/firmware) issues; (d) privacy, data security, identity verification, and testing environment; (e) psychometric development issues, especially reliability and validity; (f) cultural, experiential, and disability factors affecting examinee interaction with CNADs; (g) use of computerized testing and reporting services; and (h) the need for checks on response validity and effort in the CNAD environment. This paper is intended to provide guidance for test developers and users of CNADs that will promote accurate and appropriate use of computerized tests in a way that maximizes clinical utility and minimizes risks of misuse. The positions taken in this paper are put forth with an eye toward balancing the need to make validated CNADs accessible to otherwise underserved patients with the need to ensure that such tests are developed and utilized competently, appropriately, and with due concern for patient welfare and quality of care.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Although the AACN and the NAN outlined appropriate standards for the development of digital assessment tools development back in 2012 (15), the field had not significantly advanced as expected for the next years (16).”
From Research on digital tool in cognitive assessment: a bibliometric analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“First, high concordance may not be guaranteed after simply converting traditional pen-and-paper tests into the digital versions (15, 16).”
From Research on digital tool in cognitive assessment: a bibliometric analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct”
Ford, G. G. (2000) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781482274400-4 · Cited by 4,258
Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach.
Funk, S. G., Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1992) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290248 · Cited by 4,007
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(2007) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412952644.n432 · Cited by 3,137
DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03195503 · Cited by 2,804
Douglas, O. B., & Holland, B. F. (2015) · MacMillan Co eBooks · doi:10.1037/14910-020 · Cited by 2,283
Gaver, W. W. (1991) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91 · doi:10.1145/108844.108856 · Cited by 1,536 · cited 2×
“…system clock (McInnes & Taylor, 2001), resolution and refresh rate of the display (Gofen & Mackeben, 1997), characteristics of the user interface (Gaver, 1991), and other aspects of the operating system environment (Forster & Forster, 2003; Myors, 1999; Plant & Turner, 2009; Plant, Hammond, &…”
BackgroundHandbook of Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment
Mitrushina, M., Boone, K. B., & D'Elia, L. F. (1999) · Cited by 1,000
Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & Participants1, C. (2009) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854040903155063 · Cited by 869
Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessityNAN Policy & Planning Committee
BUSH, S., Ruff, R. M., Tröster, A. I., Barth, J. T., Koffler, S. P., Pliskin, N. H., REYNOLDS, C., & Silver, C. (2005) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2005.02.002 · Cited by 836
Self-citationHandbook of Normative Data for Neuropsychological Assessment.
DeBernardo, C. R. (2000) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-200006000-00018 · Cited by 803
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 1986, Guidelines for computer-based tests and interpretations
- Bleiberg J, 1997, Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, 10, 247
- Broglio SP, 2007, Journal of Athletic Training, 42, 509
- Cronbach LJ, 1971, Educational measurement,, 443
- Crook TH, 2009, Neuropsychological Asessment of Neuropsychiatric and Neuromedical Disorders,, 84
- Gaver WW, 1991, In CHI 1991 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology
- 10.1080/02699050110088254 · DOI
- Gualtieri CT, 2008, Medscape Journal of Medicine, 10, 90
- 10.1080/13854040903155063 · DOI · Paper page
- McInnes WJ, 2001, Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers, 31, 129
- Nunnally JC, 1994, Psychometric theory,
- 10.1176/appi.neuropsych.17.1.98 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Parsons, T. D. (2015) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2015.00660 · Cited by 837
Neuropsychological Assessment: Past and Future
Casaletto, K. B., & Heaton, R. K. (2017) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617717001060 · Cited by 270
Roebuck‐Spencer, T., Glen, T., Puente, A. E., Denney, R. L., Ruff, R. M., Hostetter, G., & Bianchini, K. J. (2017) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acx021 · Cited by 230
Self-citationApplications of Technology in Neuropsychological Assessment
Parsey, C. M., & Schmitter‐Edgecombe, M. (2013) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2013.834971 · Cited by 206
Lin, N., Wefel, J. S., Lee, E. Q., Schiff, D., van den Bent, M. J., Soffietti, R., Suh, J. H., Vogelbaum, M. A., Mehta, M. P., Dancey, J. E., et al. (2013) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70308-5 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Bauer, R. M., Iverson, G. L., Cernich, A. N., Binder, L. M., Ruff, R. M., & Naugle, R. I.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- VA Maryland Health Care System (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- National Academy of Neuropsychology (US)
- Cleveland Clinic (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bauer, Russell M.
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 177-196
- ISSN
- 0920-1637 (ISSN-L)
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- PMC
- PMC3847815
- OpenAlex
- W2123523173
- Cited by
- 154
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 12.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR029890)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- computerized neuropsychological assessment, psychometric validation, reliability and validity, response validity, effort monitoring, data security and privacy, identity verification, underserved patients, clinical utility, test misuse
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Computers, Humans, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, 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
