The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reliability and Validity of Ambulatory Cognitive Assessments
Open accessAbstract
Mobile technologies are increasingly used to measure cognitive function outside of traditional clinic and laboratory settings. Although ambulatory assessments of cognitive function conducted in people’s natural environments offer potential advantages over traditional assessment approaches, the psychometrics of cognitive assessment procedures have been understudied. We evaluated the reliability and construct validity of ambulatory assessments of working memory and perceptual speed administered via smartphones as part of an ecological momentary assessment protocol in a diverse adult sample ( N = 219). Results indicated excellent between-person reliability (≥0.97) for average scores, and evidence of reliable within-person variability across measurement occasions (0.41-0.53). The ambulatory tasks also exhibited construct validity, as evidence by their loadings on working memory and perceptual speed factors defined by the in-lab assessments. Our findings demonstrate that averaging across brief cognitive assessments made in uncontrolled naturalistic settings provide measurements that are comparable in reliability to assessments made in controlled laboratory environments.
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.
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
Ecological momentary assessment
Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091415 · Cited by 6,454
A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122 · Cited by 4,153
Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309 · Cited by 3,078
An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.336 · Cited by 1,576
The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and Time
Raven, J. (2000) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0735 · Cited by 1,560
Heron, K. E., & Smyth, J. M. (2010) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1348/135910709x466063 · Cited by 1,438
Self-citationUnsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.114.1.104 · Cited by 1,307
Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Child Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003 · Cited by 1,290
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621 · Cited by 1,139
Aging and measures of processing speed
Salthouse, T. A. (2000) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0301-0511(00)00052-1 · Cited by 1,114
Cited by
Current advances in digital cognitive assessment for preclinical Alzheimer's disease
Öhman, F., Hassenstab, J., Berron, D., Schöll, M., & Papp, K. V. (2021) · Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring · doi:10.1002/dad2.12217 · Cited by 214
Digital neuropsychology: challenges and opportunities at the intersection of science and software
Germine, L., Reinecke, K., & Chaytor, N. S. (2019) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1080/13854046.2018.1535662 · Cited by 171
Smith, K. E., Mason, T. B., Johnson, J. S., Lavender, J. M., & Wonderlich, S. A. (2018) · International Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1002/eat.22929 · Cited by 170
Zhaoyang, R., Martire, L. M., & Darnall, B. D. (2020) · Pain · doi:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001959 · Cited by 105
Jongstra, S., Wijsman, L. W., Cachucho, R., Hoevenaar-Blom, M. P., Mooijaart, S. P., & Richard, E. (2017) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.6939 · Cited by 62
Metadata
- Authors
- Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J. A., Hyun, J., Munoz, E., Smyth, J. M., & Lipton, R. B.
- Venue
- Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-04-15
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-30
- ISSN
- 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3489
- OpenAlex
- W2338364226
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 54
- FWCI
- 23.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability and Validity of Ambulatory Cognitive Assessments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1073191116643164
- The paper
- Sliwinski, M. J., Mogle, J. A., Hyun, J., Munoz, E., Smyth, J. M., & Lipton, R. B. (2018). Reliability and Validity of Ambulatory Cognitive Assessments. Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116643164
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
