Digital Ergonomics of NavegApp, a Novel Serious Game for Spatial Cognition Assessment: Content Validity and Usability Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Alzheimer disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia worldwide. With aging populations and limited access to effective treatments, there is an urgent need for innovative markers to support timely preventive interventions. Emerging evidence highlights spatial cognition (SC) as a valuable source of cognitive markers for AD. This study presents NavegApp, a serious game (SG) designed to assess 3 key components of SC, which show potential as cognitive markers for the early detection of AD. Objective This study aimed to determine the content validity and usability perception of NavegApp across multiple groups of interest. Methods A multistep process integrating methodologies from software engineering, psychometrics, and health measurement was implemented to validate the software. Our approach was structured into 3 stages, guided by the software life cycle for health and the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) recommendations for evaluating the psychometric quality of health instruments. To assess content validity, a panel of 8 experts evaluated the relevance and representativeness of tasks included in the app. In addition, 212 participants, categorized into 5 groups based on their clinical status and risk level for AD, were recruited to evaluate the app’s digital ergonomics and usability at various stages of development. Complementary analyses were performed to identify group differences and to explore the association between task difficulty and user agreeableness. Results NavegApp was validated as a highly usable tool by both experts and users. The expert panel confirmed that the tasks included in the game were representative (Aiken V=0.96-1.00) and relevant (Aiken V=0.96-1.00) for measuring SC components. Both experts and nonexperts rated NavegApp’s digital ergonomics positively, with minimal differences between groups (rrb 0.08-0.29). Differences in usability perceptions were observed among participants with sporadic mild cognitive impairment compared to cognitively healthy individuals (rrb 0.26-0.29). A moderate association was also identified between task difficulty and user agreeableness (Cramér V=0.37, 95% CI 0.28-0.54). Conclusions NavegApp is a valid and user-friendly SG designed for SC assessment, developed by integrating software engineering and psychometric evaluation methodologies. While the results are promising, further studies are warranted to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and construct validity. This work outlines a comprehensive framework for SG development in cognitive assessment, emphasizing the importance of incorporating psychometric validity measures from the outset of the design process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».