Exploring the Qualitative Experiences of Administering and Participating in Remote Research via Telephone Using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind: Cross-Sectional Study of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a drastic shift in the practice of research and clinical services. It has been noted that cognition measured via in-person versus remote methods differ substantially, and it is possible that subjective and experiential differences exist between modalities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to explore the perceptions of both researchers and older adult participants on the experience of remotely conducted research using a cognitive screener. METHODS: We conducted a thematic analysis of the experience of engaging in remote research from both the participant (n=10) and researcher (n=4) perspectives. The research interaction was framed through teleadministration of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind (suitable for telephone administration) and administration of a subsequent semistructured debriefing interview. Participant perspectives were garnered during debriefing interviews, while researcher insights were collected via self-reported qualitative field notes completed following each research session. RESULTS: Data aggregated into themes of barriers and facilitators from the lenses of both participants and researchers. Participants noted facilitators including short instrument length, convenience, and presession contact; barriers included the length of the interaction, some tasks being more challenging on the phone, and the potential for participant dishonesty. Research assistants noted several facilitators: instrument length, rapport building, ability to prepare for and record sessions, and comfort with the protocol; barriers were items with too many response options, telephone issues (eg, response delays), and concerns about participant comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest remote telephone-delivered cognitive screening tools as a feasible and acceptable method of research inquiry. The findings provide a starting point for the inclusion of diverse populations in research to capture underrepresented groups whose input would immensely benefit our understanding of remotely delivered cognitive screening measures. Further, we offer materials (eg, checklists), which can be used in future investigations to promote future inclusive research and increase generalizability.
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 | 0.031 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".