Computerized neuropsychological assessments: Pros and cons

CNS Spectrums

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 118-119

  Kemp, Andrew H ^a   Hatch, Ainslie ^b   Williams, Leanne M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b Brain Dynamics Centre

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTICAL ERROR; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNET; LETTER; MULTIPLE CHOICE TEST; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; SELF EVALUATION; STANDARDIZATION; VALIDITY; COMPUTER; HUMAN; NOTE; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

AUTOMATION; COMPUTERS; HUMANS; INTERNET; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 66849091929     PISSN: 10928529     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s1092852900020083     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Woo E. Computerized neuropsychological assessments. CNS Spectr. 2008;13(10 suppl 16):14-17.
2. Cernich A, Brennana D, Barker L, Bleiberg J. Sources of error in computerized neuropsychological assessment. Arch Clin Neuropsychology. 2007;22:39-48.
3. Guidelines for Computer-Based Tests and Interpretation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1987.
4. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association; 1999.
5. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330:765.
6. Paul R, Lawrence J, Williams L, Richard C, Cooper N, Gordon E. Preliminary validity of "integneuro": a new computerized battery of neurocognitive tests. Int J Neurosci. 2005;115:1549-1567.
7. Silverstein SM, Berten S, Olson P, et al. Development and validation of a World-Wide-Web-based neurocognitive assessment battery: WebNeuro. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:940-949.
8. Gatt JM, Nemeroff CB, Dobson-Stone C, et al. Interactions between BDNF Val66Met polymorphism and early life stress predict brain and arousal pathways to syndromal depression and anxiety. Mol Psychiatry. 2009 Jan 20. [Epub ahead of print].
9. Kemp AH, Gordon E, Rush AJ, Williams LM. Improving the prediction of treatment response in depression: integration of clinical, cognitive, psychophysiological, neuroimaging, and genetic measures. CNS Spectr. 2008;13:1066-1086.
10. Williams LM, Whitford TJ, Flynn G, et al. General and social cognition in first episode schizophrenia: identification of separable factors and prediction of functional outcome using the IntegNeuro test battery. Schizophr Res. 2008;99:182-191.
11. Clark CR, Paul RH, Williams LM, et al. Standardized assessment of cognitive functioning during development and aging using an automated touchscreen battery. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21:449-467.
12. Williams L, Simms E, Clark C, Paul R, Rowe D, Gordon E. The test-retest reliability of a standardized neurocognitive and neurophysiological test battery: "neuromarker". Int J Neurosci. 2005;115:1605-1630.
13. Mathersul D, Palmer D, Gur R, et al. Explicit identification and implicit recognition of facial emotions: II. Core domains and relationships with general cognition. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008 Aug 19:1-14. [Epub ahead of print].
14. Williams L, Mathersul D, Palmer D, Gur R, Gur R, Gordon E. Explicit identification and implicit recognition of facial emotions: I. Age effects in males and females across 10 decades. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2008 Aug 19:1-21. [Epub ahead of print].
15. BRAINnet - Brian Research And Integrative Neuroscience Network home page. Available at: http://www.brainnet.net. Accessed January 13, 2009.