Validity and reliability of a digital solution for cognitive assessment: The Brain on Track®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cognitive assessment and the early detection of cognitive impairments have been enhanced by the use of remote digital solutions. The Brain on Track® is one of these digital solutions used in clinical practice for online screening and monitoring of cognitive functioning. Objectives: This study aimed to explore the validity and reliability of the Brain on Track® computerized test on a tablet device in adults. Methods: A community sample of 54 young adults, 51 middle-aged adults, and 50 older adults were invited to attend in two assessment sessions. The first session included data collection on sociodemographic data, user digital literacy, Brain on Track® on the computer and on the tablet device, and usability from the user and moderator perspective. The second session included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Questionnaire (MoCA) and a second completion of the Brain on Track® on tablet to assess the criterion validity and test-retest reliability. Hypothesis testing was used to assess construct validity. Results: A weak to moderate correlation was found between the Brain on Track® tablet score and the MoCA. The ICC was 0.72, 0.84, and 0.79, and Cronbach's alpha was 0.84, 0.83, and 0.89 in young adults, middle-aged adults, and older adults, respectively. Conclusions: This study suggested that the Brain on Track® administered using a tablet device has criterion validity, particularly in middle-aged and older adults, and internal consistency and test-retest reliability in adults of any age group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".