A pilot examination of the validity of stylus and finger drawing on visuomotor-mediated tests on ACEmobile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cognitive assessments, such as the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE-III) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), have been modified for administration using tablet computers. While this offers important advantages for practice, it may also threaten the test validity. The current study sought to test whether administering visuospatial and writing tests using a tablet (finger or stylus drawing), would demonstrate equivalence to traditional pencil and paper administration on ACEmobile. METHOD: This study recruited 26 participants with Alzheimer's disease and 23 healthy older adults. Most participants had low familiarity with using a tablet computer. Participants completed ACEmobile in its entirety, after which they repeated the infinity loops, cube, and clock drawing and sentence writing tests by drawing with a stylus and their finger onto an iPad. Performance on the drawing and writing tests using a stylus, finger, and pencil were compared. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the finger and pencil administration on the ACEmobile, with participants performing worse on the finger drawing trials. Differences in scores were most apparent on the sentence writing task. In contrast, no statistical differences were observed between the pencil and stylus administration. DISCUSSION: The findings of this pilot study have important implications for clinical neuropsychology and demonstrate that administering ACEmobile drawing tests with finger drawing is invalid. However, due to the small sample size, a lack of counterbalancing and the narrow range of scores of the dependent variable, we are unable to confidently interpret the validity of stylus drawing. This is an important consideration for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".