Although remote neuropsychological assessments have become increasingly common, current research on the reliability and validity of scores obtained from remote at-home assessments are sparse. No studies have examined remote at-home administration of the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) even though this battery is being used to track over 45,000 participants over time. This study aimed to determine whether remote UDS scores can be combined with in-person data by assessing whether rates of score changes over time (i.e., reliability) differed by modality and whether remote and in-person scores converge (i.e., validity).

Data for UDS visits conducted from 09/2005 to 12/2021 from 43 Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers were examined. We identified 311 participants (254 cognitively unimpaired, 7 impaired - not mild cognitive impairment, 25 mild cognitive impairment, 25 dementia) who completed 2 remote UDS visits 0.868 years apart (SD = 0.200 years). First, initial remote scores were correlated with most recent in-person scores. Second, we examined whether rates of change differed between remote and in-person assessments. Repeated-measure one-way ANOVA were used to compare rates calculated from the same individual from remote versus inperson assessments. We additionally identified a demographically- and visit-number-matched group of 311 participants with in-person UDS visits given that all remote visits occurred after in-person visits; one-way ANOVAs were used to compare remote rates to rates from in-person assessments from the matched in-person group. Finally, accuracy of remote scores were assessed by quantifying the difference between the actual remote scores and predicted scores based on repeated in-person assessments. These residual values were then divided by the maximum score to form error rates.

Remote UDS score on MoCA-blind, Craft story immediate and delayed recall, digits forward, digits backward, phonemic fluency (F, L, F + L), and semantic fluency (animals, vegetables, animals + vegetables) were all highly correlated (all ps < 0.001) with scores obtained from preceding in-person assessments. At the group level, within-subject comparisons between remote and in-person rates of change were not significantly different for 7/11 tests; between-subject comparisons were not significantly different for 10/11 tests. Vegetable fluency had slightly reduced rates of change with remote assessment compared to inperson assessments. Critically, remote scores were consistent with predicted scores based on the trajectory of each subject’s in-person assessments with group mean error rates ranging from 0.7% (Craft Delayed Recall) to 3.9% (Phonemic fluency - F).

Our results demonstrate adequate reliability and convergent validity for remotely administered verbally based tests from the NACC UDS battery. Importantly, our findings provide some support for combining remote and in-person scores for studies that transitioned to remote testing due to COVID-19. However, future research is needed for tests with visual stimuli that assess visual memory, visuospatial function, and aspects of executive function.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the continuity of cognitive rehabilitation (CR) worldwide. However, the use of teleneuropsychology (TNP) to provide CR has contributed significantly to the continuity of treatment. The objective of this study was to measure the effects of CR via the TNP on cognition, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and memory strategies in a cohort of patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI).

A sample of 60 patients (60% female; age: 72.4±6.96) with MCI according to Petersen criteria was randomly divided into two groups: 30 cases (treatment group) and 30 controls (waiting list group). Subjects were matched for age, sex, and MMSE or MoCA.

The treatment group received ten weekly CR sessions of 45 minutes weekly. Pre-treatment (week 0) and post-treatment (week 10) measures were assessed for both groups. Different Linear Mixed Models were estimated to test treatment effect (CR vs. Controls) on each outcome of interest over Time (Pre/Post), controlling for Diagnosis, Age, Sex, and MMSE/MoCA performance.

A significant Group (Control/Treatment) x Time (pre/post) interaction revealed that the treatment group at 10 weeks had better scores in cognitive variables: memory (RAVLT learning trials p=0.030; RAVLT delayed recall p=0.029), phonological fluency(p=0.001), activities of daily living (FAQ p=0.001), satisfaction with memory performance (MMQ Satisfaction p=0.004) and use of memory strategies (MMQ Strategy p=0.00), and a significant reduction of affective symptomatology: depression (GDS p=0.00), neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPIQ p=0.045), Forgetfulness (EDO-10 p=0.00), Stress (DAS Stress p=0.00).

This is the first study to test CR using teleNP in South America. Our results suggest that CR through teleNP is an effective intervention to improve performance on cognitive variables and reduce neuropsychiatric symptomatology compared to patients with MCI. These results have great significance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in South America, where teleNP is proving to be a valuable tool.

Approximately half of all children and adults newly diagnosed with epilepsy also show behavioral and/or cognitive difficulties upon evaluation. While neuropsychological screening is recommended as a routine part of care at seizure onset, in reality, access to care is often restricted by many factors. In order to better define the extent of the problem, we developed a survey to understand how frequently youth with new onset epilepsy currently undergo neuropsychological evaluation or screening and whether virtual assessment tools are used to extend access to care.

We created an online survey to better understand new onset epilepsy care provided within neuropsychological practice settings in the United States and Canada. The survey was disseminated via multiple listservs (e.g., AACN listservs, APPCN, PERF neuropsychologists) and respondents included 45 neuropsychologists. Survey questions were grouped by the following domains: 1) location characteristics (e.g., urban versus rural location, type of practice, affiliation with comprehensive epilepsy center); 2) volume of new onset epilepsy patient cases (e.g., number of neuropsychologists within practice who see new onset patients, percentage of new onset cases who received neuropsychological evaluations/screeners, wait time), and 3) tele-neuropsychology procedures (e.g., use of virtual testing, frequency of virtual testing, frequency of virtual intakes/feedbacks).

Practice locations of the 45 respondents included academic medical center (n=34, 75.6%), community medical center (n=10, 22.2%), and private practice (n=1, 2.2%). All but one respondent practiced in an urban setting. Respondents were generally affiliated with Comprehensive Epilepsy Centers (level 3 or 4) (n=39, 86.7%). Practice settings typically included < 3 epilepsy neuropsychologists (n=29, 65.9%). Of interest, neuropsychological evaluation of new onset pediatric epilepsy patients generally ranged from 0-25% of cases (n=32, 71%; mode=11-25%). Reported barriers included: insurance, poor access to rural populations, interdisciplinary communication, departmental referral patterns, limited number of providers, and need to prioritize pre-surgical patients. In terms of access, neuropsychology waitlist times for patients with nonsurgical epilepsy ranged from <1 to 6 months (n=34, 75%) with an equal proportion of patients waiting 1-3 months (33%) and 4-6 months (33%). Telehealth was not frequently utilized in non-surgical epilepsy test administration (Do not use, n=39; 86.7%), but frequently incorporated for non-testing purposes (i.e., intakes, feedbacks) (n=40, 88.9%).

Results of this provider survey indicate that children with new-onset epilepsy do not routinely undergo neuropsychological evaluation (< 25%). Barriers included prioritizing presurgical workups, referral patterns, access to care, and limited provider bandwidth. Clearly, there is a need to improve access to care. Possible solutions include developing more time efficient screening batteries with measures most sensitive to early cognitive and psychosocial deficits, and incorporating the use of virtual technology all in the service of improving the lives of children with epilepsy.

Attention of the research community on childhood cancer has grown exponentially over the last 5 decades (Robinson & Hudson, 2014). With research attention growing rapidly, cure rates have increased just as dramatically, with survivorship well over 80% (Ward, et al., 2014). With survivorship on the rise, research has turned to the examination of late effects in survivors of childhood cancer, especially neuropsychological late effects (Krull, et al., 2018). Late effects, functional impairment, and the awareness of one’s own impairment can create several lasting issues in a survivor’s life (Oeffinger, et al., 2010). The objective of this study is to explore the feasibility and functionality of a group intervention for this population.

Participants were recruited from a pediatric cancer institute in southern California. To be considered for inclusion, participants must have completed curative treatment for childhood cancer, not be currently undergoing treatment for childhood cancer, be free of any severe and persistent mental illnesses, and have access to a stable internet connection (for Zoom sessions). This study examined the impact of an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)-based group intervention protocol on survivors of childhood cancer. Specifically, this study explored a strategy to identify early neuropsychological late effects and a strategy to improve these impacts. The group intervention was conducted via Zoom (www.zoom.us) which provided an opportunity to continue to provide this service in the wake of COVID-19. Data was collected at baseline and at the completion of the group intervention. This data focused on the functional and perceived impacts of neuropsychological sequelae in these participants, as well as the changes as related to the group intervention.

Data did not show any significant changes from baseline to follow-up in this population. The lack of significance was likely due to a severely truncated sample size. Despite the lack of significant findings, data appears to trend negatively. Although these findings do not provide conclusive evidence for this ACT-based group as an intervention for neuropsychological late effects in survivors of childhood cancer, the data suggested some interesting trends which will be explored further in this presentation.

The results of this study help to further explore the importance of attention to neuropsychological symptoms and issues in survivors of childhood cancer, especially within the first few years following the completion of treatment. As survivorship continues to increase, it will be of utmost importance to continue to examine the impact of neuropsychological late effects and how the field of neuropsychology can best serve this population. This study was severely limited by a small sample size, a single clinician providing the protocol, and a truncated timeline. Further research will examine the impact of this study protocol in a larger sample size, which will likely increase the ability to reject the null hypothesis. In addition, future research must also be conducted to better explore strategies of early and consistent neuropsychological intervention in this population.

Opioid use disorder (OUD) has been declared a national public health emergency leading to increased enrollment in medication assisted treatment (MAT) programs. Cognitive deficits are seen among those with OUD which can persist even with MAT. Moreover, cognitive deficits predict poor community and treatment outcomes. Neuropsychological evaluations can identify, diagnose, and provide treatment recommendations, and are associated with improved outcomes in non-substance use patient populations. Yet, patients with OUD rarely undergo neuropsychological assessment when participating in opioid use treatment. Teleneuropsychology (TNP) may increase access to care but has not been evaluated with people with substance use disorders (SUDs). This project used a mixed-method design to evaluate the feasibility and impact of a pilot hybrid TNP service with new patients with OUDs entering a MAT program.

Participants were >18 years old and new patients enrolling in MAT for OUD. Participants were excluded if they planned to move out of town within six months or were pending incarceration. Participants were identified by triage questions at MAT intake based on frequency of relevant co-occurring conditions indicating those with greatest need. Positively triaged individuals were referred to the TNP service which was conducted by a hybrid approach (i.e., patient presents to the clinic and is evaluated from a separate room using video-teleconferencing technology). We aimed to schedule participants within two-weeks of 30-days from intake to the MAT program. Consented participants completed questionnaires of feasibility and acceptability (e.g., satisfaction, usefulness) after undergoing a screening TNP evaluation and feedback of the results and recommendations. Participants also were invited to undergo a brief qualitative interview to further assess facilitators and barriers.

Of 57 individuals screened positive, 51 were referred, and 14 were reached to offer TNP. Ten (71.4%) agreed to the TNP evaluation and scheduled an appointment, though 50% had the first appointment scheduled within two weeks of 30-days after intake to MAT. Seven (70%) did not keep the first appointment (no show or cancellation) or were rescheduled due to clinic scheduling. Three were reached to reschedule. All three were unable to keep the appointment, but one did reschedule and keep the third appointment. Of the 4 who attended TNP, only 1 (25%) was within two weeks of 30-days after intake. Of those who attended the TNP appointment, 100% completed the protocol, 75% were satisfied with the evaluation overall, 75% found the evaluation useful, and 67% would recommend TNP to others (one participant did not respond to this question).

Neuropsychological assessment may provide valuable information to improve treatment for those with OUDs. This pilot project revealed that individuals with OUDs can tolerate and are satisfied with a screening TNP evaluation and find the evaluation useful. The primary barrier was reaching referred patients. Treatment engagement among those with SUDs is a common challenge. Those with counselors who coordinated with the clinic schedulers were more likely to be reached and scheduled, suggesting support for regular case management. Other lessons learned and potential future steps are discussed.

The objective of this study was to examine whether novel pandemic-related stressors have any effect on cognitive functioning. This study aimed to examine whether the overall number of pandemic-related stressors, and whether stressor type, are associated with cognitive problems. The coronavirus pandemic, and societal changes to prevent and respond to it, have created novel stressors, including unemployment, social isolation, and health risks. While prior research has focused on the physical and psychological consequences of these stressors, these stressors may also be associated with cognitive impairments. Individuals who have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and individuals who experience chronic stress are at risk for cognitive impairments, however, research has not yet examined whether pandemic-related stressors not specifically related to infection but to the experience of the pandemic overall, are associated with cognitive deficits. This study evaluated whether pandemic-related psychosocial stressors (financial, health, role/responsibility, and social) were related to cognitive functioning. We hypothesized that individuals with a higher number of pandemic-related stressors will perform worse on cognitive domains of attention, memory, and executive functions, than those with fewer stressors.

An online survey recruited participants (A/=19), of whom 89.5% were female, and the average age was 34 years (SD=15.7), to complete an online neuropsychological battery. Participants first completed questionnaires on the coronavirus pandemic, demographic characteristics, and completed the BDI-II and the BAI. An online neuropsychological battery was administered to participants over Zoom consisting of various neuropsychological tests, including the RAVLT, story memory, digit span, FAS, animal fluency, a go-no/go task, the Stroop, and the NAART-R.

A majority of participants (89.5%) experienced one or more coronavirus pandemic stressors, with only two participants reporting no coronavirus stressors. A majority of participants experienced at least one social stressor (57.9%), role/responsibility stressor (63.2%), and health stressor (52.6%), with financial stressors (47.4%) experienced by just fewer than half of participants. Pearson’s correlations showed significant negative correlations between stressors and performance on several neuropsychological tests. Specifically, social, health, and total stressors were associated with significantly poorer performance on digit span backwards and trials of the RAVLT (i.e., Trials 15, delayed recall, recognition) (ps<.05). Social stressors, health stressors, and total pandemic stressors were significantly associated with poorer performance on measures of working memory, processing speed, verbal learning, and verbal memory.

While small sample size limits the power and generalizability of these findings, this study highlights the need to investigate the cognitive effects of pandemic-related stressors. An expanded coronavirus questionnaire would be beneficial as the current questionnaire may have not captured all stressors of the pandemic, or level of severity, that could potentially contribute to changes in neuropsychological function. Pandemic-related stressors have spread into many areas of everyday life and the consequences that have stemmed from these stressors seem to play a negative role on the general wellbeing of individuals and also show an effect on psychological and neuropsychological functioning. This study illustrates the need for an expanded response to health crises, as the negative results of this pandemic have not been solely affecting physical health.

Finding effective, innovative, and accessible methods of coping with and mitigating stress has been increasingly relevant in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. To do so, it is important to understand the impact of acute stress responses on cognition, behavior, and emotional functioning. The young adult population in particular has been known to show higher levels of stress. Studies have shown that deep breathing interventions are associated with improved affect, decreased stress levels, and improved cognitive functioning. The autonomic nervous system, particularly the functioning of the vagus nerve, has been thought to be a key mechanism in the effect of breathing on stress and mood. Most studies to date investigating the efficacy of breathing practices in stress reduction and mood improvement have lacked appropriate methodology, including adequate control groups, randomization, and cross-sectional designs. This single-blind, randomized, waitlist-controlled study investigated the feasibility of using a mobile application to train in resonance frequency breathing and its efficacy in reducing stress and improving cognitive functioning in a non-clinical sample of young adults with elevated stress.

80 healthy young adults with elevated stress levels were recruited from the NY/NJ community and the Queens College undergraduate research subject pool. Inclusion criteria: ages 18-29, Perceived Stress Scale score >13. Exclusion criteria: regular (at least 3 times per week) practice of any form of meditation, yoga, or breathing exercise; severe medical or psychiatric disorder; active suicidal ideation; drug or alcohol abuse within the past year; use of medication with a known negative impact on cognition or autonomic nervous system (ANS) arousal. Participants were randomized to a waitlist control group or breathing group. Participants in the breathing group were instructed to complete 10-minute breathing sessions using the free mobile application “The Breathing App” twice a day for five days per week for four weeks. Cognitive assessments were administered over the phone (pre and post-treatment) and self-report measures were completed online due to quarantine restrictions.

There were no significant main effects of group across any of the neuropsychological variables, including verbal memory, letter fluency, category fluency, cognitive flexibility, processing speed, basic attention span, and working memory. This indicated that breathing training did not significantly impact neuropsychological performance. Mediation analysis also demonstrated that breathing training did not indirectly lead to improvement in basic attention, processing speed, working memory, set-shifting, verbal fluency, category fluency, or cognitive flexibility, through its effects on stress reduction.

These results do not support literature suggesting that breathing at resonance frequency is associated with improved cognitive functioning such as greater cognitive flexibility, improved decision-making, stronger response inhibition, faster processing speed, and increased working memory. Future study designs should consider implementing active control groups (e.g., mindfulness meditation) and differential dosages of the breathing treatment.

Virtual testing can reduce cost and burdens, as well as increase access to clinical care. Few studies have examined the equivalency of virtual and in-person administration of standardized measures of executive functioning in children. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we utilized virtual administration of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System, Color-Word Interference Test (DKEFS-CW) in our ongoing longitudinal research study exploring outcomes in children clinically recovered from concussion compared to never-concussed peers. In the current study, we explore the equivalence of scores obtained via in-person and virtual administration of the DKEFS-CW in youth recovered from concussion and never-concussed controls.

Participants included 112 youth ages 10-18 (Mage=14.05 years, SD=2.296; 53.5 % Male) who completed the DKEFS-CW in-person (n=63) or virtually (n=49) as part of their involvement in the parent study. Of these, 38 were recovered from concussion (Mdays since injury— 91.21, SD=88.91), and 74 were never-injured controls. Virtual administration was done via Zoom by presenting digital scans of the DKEFS stimulus book using the screen-sharing function. Participants set up and joined the Zoom call from a secondary device (cell phone) that was set in a stable position to provide a view of their screen, mouse and keyboard setup. Group (in-person vs remote) differences in DKEFS-CW scores were examined using independent-samples t-tests for all subtest conditions (color naming, word reading, inhibition, and inhibition/switching). T-tests/chi-square tests were used to examine between-group differences in demographic variables (i.e., age, sex maternal education, IQ, concussion history). Demographic variables that were significantly different by group were then included as covariates in ANCOVA models examining the effect of administration context on performance.

There were no significant differences in DKEFS-CW scaled scores between those who were administered the measure in-person or virtually (Color Naming: Min-person=10.78, Mvirtual=10.08, t(110)=1.634, p=.105; Word Reading: Min-person=11.25, Mvirtual=10.92, t(110)=.877, p=.382; Inhibition: M in-person= 11.70, Mvirtual=11.24, t(110)=1.182, p=.240; Inhibition/Switching: Mi n-person= 11.29, Mvirtual=10.82, t(110)=1.114, p=.268). There were no significant between-group differences in concussion history, sex, maternal education or IQ. However, those who were administered the DKEFS-CW in-person (Mage=13.55) were significantly younger than those who were administered the measure virtually (Mage=14.69), t(110)=-2.777, p=.006. After controlling for age, there remained no significant relationship between administration context (in-person vs. virtual) and DKEFS-CW performance for any subtest condition (Color Naming: F(1,30)=.016, p=.889; Word Reading: F(1,76)=.655, p=.421; Inhibition: F(1,30)=.038, p=.847; Inhibition/Switching: F(1,30)=.015, p=.902).

The recommended practice for remote administration of DKEFS-CW is to have test stimuli presented flat on a table by a trained facilitator present with the examinees. Here, we provide preliminary evidence of equivalence between DKEFS-CW scores from tests completed in-person and those completed virtually with stimuli presented on a computer screen. Future studies are needed to replicate these findings in clinical populations with greater variability in executive function. Some clinical populations may also require more in-person support. Likewise, future studies may examine the role of trained facilitators or caregivers in the virtual testing process.

Gaining access to specialty care services, including neuropsychology, can be challenging, especially for older adults and individuals who live in rural areas. In addition to these barriers, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic further disrupted patient access to essential healthcare services. Telehealth, which underwent rapid expansion in response to service disruptions due to COVID-19, offers opportunities to prevent or reduce disruptions in patient care, including neuropsychological assessment. Here we describe the development and implementation of a teleneuropsychology (telenp) clinic within a major VA medical center and discuss salient clinical observations and patient feedback gathered during telenp evaluations.

A hybrid telenp clinic was developed at the Tennessee Valley VA Healthcare system to serve patients referred for neuropsychological evaluations whose access to services was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients presented to the VA and were connected to neuropsychology providers seated in separate rooms of the hospital through synchronous video. Test batteries were created to closely approximate in-person evaluations while allowing for minor procedural modifications so tests could be administered virtually. All tests were administered by on-site trained staff. After the evaluation, anecdotal information about patient experiences and satisfaction and salient clinical observations were gathered to elucidate potential benefits and shortcomings of hybrid telenp model.

65 telenp neuropsychological evaluations were conducted between December 2020 and April 2021. Overall, patients consistently and strikingly reported a high degree of openness and acceptance towards telenp services, even despite initial technological apprehension. Importantly, patients ubiquitously reported believed they were able to adequately engage in telenp assessments, and no perceptible barriers were identified. Clinically, examiners consistently expressed surprise at the relative ease with which the evaluations could be adapted to a telenp program. Additionally, clinicians generally felt confident in the validity of the results and that the data gathered were sufficient to answer the referral question and make salient treatment recommendations and referrals. Importantly, there were some notable limitations to telenp assessment and not all patients were testable via telehealth.

Qualitatively, hybrid telenp evaluations are feasible and acceptable, and appear to be a valid alternative to face to face neuropsychological assessments. Future research should focus on establishing the reliability and validity of telenp testing compared to face-to-face testing, collective quantitative data regarding patient and clinician experiences of telenp and identify methods for implementing telenp in clinics in rural catchment areas to increase access to neuropsychological services.

Neuropsychological assessment is the cornerstone of concussion management, and the nature of its delivery can vary widely. While literature concerning post-concussion care typically revolves around in-person evaluation, the proliferation of computerized neuropsychological tests (CNTs) has allowed for some distance between concussion patients and the neuropsychologist. In the wake of a global pandemic, several papers describing the use of telehealth for concussion care have emerged; however, the small samples found in these studies may suggest that access to care remains an issue. Additionally, telehealth may not be a sustainable fee-for-service approach as CMS aims to curtail telehealth reimbursement for behavioral health clinicians. The objective of the present study is to describe a remote neuropsychological consultation model of concussion management and evaluate its productivity and impact in a rural setting.

In this model, a neuropsychologist based at an academic medical center in the northeastern United States consulted to middle school, high school, and collegiate concussion management programs. Students typically were administered baseline ImPACT tests prior to participation in sports, and all students in the current sample completed post-injury ImPACT tests as part of return to play protocols. The neuropsychologist read test results through the test’s online portal, then communicated interpretation and recommendations via email or phone to the school’s representative (e.g., athletic trainer, athletic director, or school nurse). 837 unique concussions were recorded between 2019 and 2022. After removing abnormal cases (e.g., COVID-19 school closures, extended college breaks, non-concussions, and non-return to play decisions), 790 unique concussions (51.4% male) were included for analysis, with a mean age of 16.84 years (SD=2.17). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample.

Across 790 unique concussions, 7 were middle school, 571 were high school, and 212 were college students. 1,750 total postinjury ImPACT tests were administered over the three-year period. Per concussion, an average of 2.22 (SD=0.90) tests were used. Average time to the last ImPACT given was 18.47 days (SD=16.59), with a median of 15 days. Ten concussions (1.27% of total concussions) occurred within 3 months of a previous injury. The distance between schools and the medical center ranged from 2.4 to 102 miles (M=60.29; SD=34.34).

The current study suggests that there is value in a remote model of neuropsychological consultation for concussion management. While telehealth offers a promising method of evaluation for concussion, it may be inaccessible and present reimbursement challenges. The remote consultation model described here increases access to care by eliminating in-person visits, which decreases demand for physical space at medical centers and increases access to rural populations with seemingly no negative effect on care. This consultation model also allows neuropsychologists working in concussion management more flexibility, potentially increasing the volume of cases they can assess. This program evaluation suggests remote models have merit, but replication studies in different regions of the country are needed.

Face-to-face administration is the “gold standard” for both research and clinical cognitive assessments. However, many factors may impede or prevent face-to-face assessments, including distance to clinic, limited mobility, eyesight, or transportation. The COVID19 pandemic further widened gaps in access to care and clinical research participation. Alternatives to face-to-face assessments may provide an opportunity to alleviate the burden caused by both the COVID-19 pandemic and longer standing social inequities. The objectives of this study were to develop and assess the feasibility of a telephone- and video-administered version of the Uniform Data Set (UDS) v3 cognitive batteries for use by NIH-funded Alzheimer’s Disease Research Centers (ADRCs) and other research programs.

Ninety-three individuals (M age: 72.8 years; education: 15.6 years; 72% female; 84% White) enrolled in our ADRC were included. Their most recent adjudicated cognitive status was normal cognition (N=44), MCI (N=35), mild dementia (N=11) or other (N=3). They completed portions of the UDSv3 cognitive battery, plus the RAVLT, either by telephone or video-format within approximately 6 months (M:151 days) of their annual in-person visit, where they completed the same in-person cognitive assessments. Some measures were substituted (Oral Trails for TMT; Blind MoCA for MoCA) to allow for phone administration. Participants also answered questions about the pleasantness, difficulty level, and preference for administration mode. Cognitive testers provided ratings of perceived validity of the assessment. Participants’ cognitive status was adjudicated by a group of cognitive experts blinded to most recent inperson cognitive status.

When results from video and phone modalities were combined, the remote assessments were rated as pleasant as the inperson assessment by 74% of participants. 75% rated the level of difficulty completing the remote cognitive assessment the same as the in-person testing. Overall perceived validity of the testing session, determined by cognitive assessors (video = 92%; phone = 87.5%), was good. There was generally good concordance between test scores obtained remotely and in-person (r = .3 -.8; p < .05), regardless of whether they were administered by phone or video, though individual test correlations differed slightly by mode. Substituted measures also generally correlated well, with the exception of TMT-A and OTMT-A (p > .05). Agreement between adjudicated cognitive status obtained remotely and cognitive status based on in-person data was generally high (78%), with slightly better concordance between video/in-person (82%) vs phone/in-person (76%).

This pilot study provided support for the use of telephone- and video-administered cognitive assessments using the UDSv3 among individuals with normal cognitive function and some degree of cognitive impairment. Participants found the experience similarly pleasant and no more difficult than inperson assessment. Test scores obtained remotely correlated well with those obtained in person, with some variability across individual tests. Adjudication of cognitive status did not differ significantly whether it was based on data obtained remotely or in-person. The study was limited by its’ small sample size, large test-retest window, and lack of randomization to test-modality order. Current efforts are underway to more fully validate this battery of tests for remote assessment. Funded by: P30 AG072947 & P30 AG049638-05S1

Telecommunication-assisted neuropsychological assessment (teleNP) has become more widespread, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, comparatively few studies have evaluated in-home teleNP testing and none, to our knowledge, have evaluated the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center’s (NACC) Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 t-cog). The current study compares in-home teleNP administration of the UDS v3.0, acquired while in-person activities were suspended due to COVID-19, with a prior in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation.

210 participants from the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center’s longitudinal study of memory and aging completed both an in-person UDS v3.0 and a subsequent teleNP UDS v3.0 evaluation. The teleNP UDS v3.0 was administered either via video conference (n = 131), telephone (n = 75), or hybrid format (n = 4) with approximately 16 months between evaluations (mean = 484.7 days; SD = 122.4 days; range = 320-986 days). The following clinical phenotypes were represented at the initial assessment period (i.e., the most recent in-person UDS v3.0 evaluation prior to the teleNP UDS v3.0): cognitively healthy (n = 138), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 60), dementia (n = 11), and impaired not MCI (n = 1). Tests included both the in-person and teleNP UDS v3.0 measures, as well as the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) and Letter “C” Fluency.

We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) with raw scores from each time point for the entire sample. Sub-analyses were conducted for each phenotype among participants with an unchanged consensus research diagnosis: cognitively healthy (n = 122), MCI (n = 47), or cognitively impaired (i.e., MCI, dementia, and impaired not MCI) (n = 66). Test-retest reliability across modalities and clinical phenotypes was, in general, moderate. The poorest agreement was associated with the Trail Making Test (TMT) - A (ICC = 0.00; r = 0.027), TMT - B (ICC = 0.26; r = 0.44), and Number Span Backward (ICC = 0.49). The HVLT-R demonstrated moderate reliability overall (ICC = 0.51-0.68) but had notably weak reliability for cognitively healthy participants (ICC = 0.12-0.36). The most favorable reliability was observed in Craft Story 21 Recall - Delayed (ICC = 0.77), Letter Fluency (C, F, and L) (ICC = 0.74), Multilingual Naming Test (MINT) (ICC = 0.75), and Benson Complex Figure – Delayed (ICC = 0.79).

Even after accounting for the inherent limitations of this study (e.g., significant lapse of time between testing intervals), our findings suggest that the UDS v3.0 teleNP battery shows only modest relationships with its in-person counterpart. Particular caution should be used when interpreting measures showing questionable reliability, though we encourage further investigation of remote vs. in-person testing under more controlled conditions.

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a well validated and reliable clinical assessment tool that can be used for characterizing cognitive function in older adults. The RBANS has been shown to reliably discriminate between Alzheimer’s disease (AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and cognitively healthy (CH) individuals. While the RBANS has traditionally been administered in a face to face setting, administration is also feasible via telehealth. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, cognitive assessments were unexpectedly moved to telehealth formats. Given this, the current study assessed whether differences emerged between face to face and telehealth RBANS scores in both individuals who were CH and had MCI.

A total of 61 individuals (NCH = 27, NMCI = 34) completed baseline and 1-year follow-up visits in the current study. The sample was predominantly female (N = 43, 70.5%), identified as white (N = 57, 93.4%), and were well educated (MYears = 15.93). Participants completed the RBANS form B at an in-person baseline visit and form C at a one year follow-up visit. Higher RBANS scores indicate overall better cognitive performance. As expected, CH individuals performed better than those with MCI on immediate memory, language, attention, delayed memory, and total score. There were no significant differences found for the visuospatial index. Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to assess whether differences in RBANS performance existed based on test administration method.

Group differences between testing formats were observed in CH individuals on immediate memory [F(1,37) =9.10, p < .01)], language [F(1, 37)=9.41=p < .01)], and total score [F(1,37)=6.56, p < .05], with higher performance in those who completed the followup session in-person.There were no differences in baseline performance on any RBANS index between those who received an in person versus telehealth format (p’s > .05). No differences were observed in the MCI group. There were no significant differences observed between the CH and MCI group on demographic factors.

Results from the current study suggest that CH counterparts experienced a greater degree of difference in scores between testing formats, whereas individuals with MCI did not. The lack of difference in MCI individuals may be due to less room for variability over time for this group given already low scores. These results suggest that while telehealth has been shown to be a viable option for RBANS administration in some samples, further work needs to be conducted regarding the equivalence of in-person vs. telehealth formats. This study is not without limitations. The small MCI group was segmented into in-person and telehealth groups, further reducing power to detect statistically significant results. The sample was also homogenous with highly educated, Caucasian women. Future research should aim to assess a larger, more diverse sample to identify whether RBANS is a reliable measure alone for assessing cognitive change over time via telehealth for MCI.

The CCoSI is a brief screening instrument that is designed to detect cognitive impairment in children aged 5y0m-16y11m shortly after acquired brain injury (ABI) by evaluating language, fluency, attention, memory, and visuospatial domains. Each domain translates to a CCoSI index and is composed of a series of brief subtests. This study assessed the feasibility of modifying the Children’s Cognitive Screening Instrument (CCoSI) into an electronic version (eCCoSI) and administering it using video teleconferencing (VTC).

Tasks and stimuli were modified for online administration. Typically developing children aged 5y0m-16y11 m were tested using the modified eCCoSI via VTC. The eCCoSI was administered using Skype for Business and Microsoft Teams. Participants attended one 25-minute video assessment session over either platform. Results of VTC-assessed healthy controls were compared to age-matched peers ([25] Female: [19] Male; mean age = [11.54], SD = [3.01], age range =5.00-15.75) who had been previously tested face-to-face (FTF) with the original CCoSI at the Bristol Royal Hospital for Children (BRHC).

Age-related trends in performance were also examined across FTF and VTC for comparability.

44 typically developing children were virtually assessed ([25] Female: [19] Male; mean age = [11.79], SD = [3.03], age range =5.05-16.92). Results from a 2x2 ANOVA with age-group and modality as independent factors showed no significant difference in performance between participants tested FTF and VTC over the CCoSI Attention, Fluency, Language, Memory, and Visuospatial indices. No significant result of interaction between age and modality was found; however, there was a significant result of age-group.

VTC assessment is a feasible alternative to FTF administration of the CCoSI within healthy controls. Results from the present study are promising for the use of the eCCoSI in clinical practice. Further research should attempt to replicate these results within clinical populations.

Youth athletes with concussion are at an increased risk of sustaining new concussions and orthopedic injuries after clearance for return-to-play. There are training programs, extensively studied in other patient populations, which can improve performance in cognitive domains that have been implicated in sport-related injury and re-injury after concussion (i.e., visual attention/processing speed). The Useful Field of View (UFOV) is one such training program, accompanied by a computerized adaptive assessment for evaluating response to training and maintenance in clinical trials. Remote UFOV assessment administration may help improve adherence, particularly in assessing long-term training effects. The current study explores the feasibility of virtual UFOV assessment and equivalence with in-person administration in youth clinically recovered from concussion and healthy controls.

Participants included youth ages 10-18 enrolled in a longitudinal study examining neural recovery following medical clearance from concussion. UFOV was attempted in 61 participants (Mage=15.06; SD=2.00; n=19 in-person; n=42). Of these, 7 virtual administrations were discontinued due to computer limitations, and 1 in-person administration was excluded due to overall performance validity concerns. This resulted in a total sample of 53 participants (Mage=15.02, SD=2.00, 58.5% male; n=14 concussion, Mdays_since_injury=272.64, SD=185.35; n=39 controls). UFOV was administered either in-person (n=18) using manual guidelines or virtually (n=35) on the participant’s computer using video-conference screen-share and a secondary device for an additional view of the participant and their keyboard/mouse. For virtual visits, the examiner recorded concerns about the remote testing environment (e.g., screen glare, viewing distance not measured appropriately), and analyses were conducted with and without cases with concerns. Between-group (in-person vs virtual administration) demographic differences were examined using chi-square tests/t-tests. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine for differences in UFOV scores (ms; higher scores are worse) by administration context (in-person vs. virtual) given threats to normality.

For virtual administrations, the most commonly reported concerns about the remote testing environment were related to lighting (n=12) and viewing distance (n=3). There were no significant differences in age, sex, concussion history, sport participation history, or IQ by administration context (in-person vs. virtual). UFOV performance did not vary significantly by administration context for processing speed or divided attention subtests, but performance on the selective attention subtest was significantly better in the virtual administration group (Median in-person =93.33; Medianvirtual=63.33; U=203.00, p=0.035). This trend persisted after removing an outlier (>2SD; p=0.065) and after removing cases where lighting (p=0.060) and screen-viewing distance (p=0.085) were not adequately controlled.

Though preliminary, results suggest that UFOV can be administered virtually, in youth with and without a history of concussion, but that those assessed virtually using their home computer may have an advantage, particularly for the selective attention subtest. This may be due to comfort level within the home environment or subtle differences in viewing distance that were not appreciated by the examiner remotely. Importantly, not all participants were able to complete the assessment virtually due to computer limitations. Future work with larger samples size should examine the extent to which completers vary from non-completers in terms of sociodemographic variables.

Following the start of the SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic there was a rapid uptake in teleneuropsychology (TeleNP). Many clinicians and researchers used videoconferencing technologies (e.g., Zoom®) to conduct remote neuropsychological assessments. Prior reviews (e.g., Marra et al., 2020) have indicated promise for the use of videoconference-based approaches to cognitive assessment under certain circumstances, though arguably nobody foresaw the widespread use of teleNP during the pandemic. Given the rapid expansion in the teleNP literature in the past couple of years, in this scoping review we specifically discuss research updates made during the COVID-19 pandemic pertaining to teleNP assessment of adults conducted via videoconferencing and their potential clinical applications.

GoogleScholar and PubMed were used to search for peer-reviewed original research articles published between January 1, 2020 (i.e., the approximate beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic) and August 1, 2022. Broad search terms were used pertaining to teleNP, remote cognitive assessment, videoconferencing, and neuropsychological assessment, resulting in 16 articles.

Though most of the included studies were based in the United States (n=5), there was international representation across studies (Chile=1; United Kingdom=1; Australia=2; New Zealand=1; France=2; Greece=1; Japan=2, Singapore=1). All of the identified articles examined TeleNP-related research questions using cognitive tests administered via videoconferencing that have been previously studied in-person to varying degrees. Several of the studies focused on psychometric characterization (i.e., reliability and validity) of the examined tests when delivered via videoconferencing, whereas others focused on demonstrating the relative equivalence of neuropsychological scores obtained via videoconferencing versus in-person evaluations.

Formal psychometric studies of traditional in-person neuropsychological tests delivered via videoconferencing since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that this remote modality of assessment is generally reliable and valid. Moreover, multiple recent studies have demonstrated relative equivalence of neuropsychological scores obtained via videoconferencing versus neuropsychological test scores obtained in-person. When considered alongside teleNP research conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g. Cullum et al., 2014), recent studies on videoconference-based neuropsychological assessment indicate that videoconferencing may not necessarily be a complete substitute for an in-person comprehensive evaluation given the inherent limitations of the procedure. However, teleNP via videoconferencing may be a promising tool in the neuropsychologist’s toolbox because it can help reduce common barriers to in-person neuropsychological assessment (e.g., travel time to clinics). Additional research on videoconferencing-based cognitive assessment is needed, especially in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) and diverse populations where there may be more economic barriers to remote neuropsychological assessment relative to more economically-developed countries. Notably it is possible that research from LMIC may have been missed through the screening processes used in this review (e.g., inclusion of articles written in English).

With the emergence of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic, investigating the validity of tele-screenings for neuropsychological status has become increasingly necessary. While the telephone version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-T) has been validated for use in patients with Parkinson’s and stroke/cerebrovascular disease, the clinical utility of this instrument in geriatric patients with other suspected cognitive disorders has yet to be determined. Thus, the present study aimed to examine the classification accuracy of the MoCA-T in a mixed clinical sample of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia.

Ninety-one older adults were administered the MoCA-T via videoconferencing technology as part of a comprehensive neurocognitive evaluation performed by a multidisciplinary treatment team within a dementia specialty clinic. Based on this evaluation, 51 (56.0%) patients were diagnosed with dementia, 27 (29.7%) with MCI, and 13 (14.3%) with no neurocognitive diagnosis (i.e., subjective cognitive complaints). In addition to MoCA-T total and item scores, we also computed subscale scores for between-group comparisons as the sum of items assessing orientation, language, attention/executive function, and memory. ANOVA/ANCOVA and ROC curve analyses were used to examine between-group differences on the MoCA-T and its psychometric properties in discriminating patients with MCI or dementia, respectively.

Participants had a mean age of 74.3 ± 8.7 and education of 16 ± 2.9 years. Patients with dementia were significantly older than those with MCI and no diagnosis, but there were no other significant between-group differences in clinical characteristics. MoCA-T total [F(2,86)=28.5, p<0.001] and all subscale scores (p<0.01) differed significantly between groups and in the expected direction (dementia<MCI<no diagnosis) even after controlling for age. The only exception was language for which there was initially a statistical trend (p=0.06) that reached significance (p<0.05) after controlling for age. In terms of individual items, abstraction, fluency, orientation to place/city, and category cued recall were the only items that did not differ significantly between groups. ROC curve analyses revealed -5 points to be the optimum cut-off for distinguishing between cognitively normal individuals from patients with MCI (Sensitivity=0.67; Specificity=0.77; AUC=0.78), and a cut-off of -8 points optimally distinguished between patients with MCI and dementia (Sensitivity=0.77; Specificity=0.74; AUC=0.81).

The current study provides further evidence for the clinical utility of the MoCA-T as a screening instrument for neurocognitive disorders in older adults and extends prior work to include administration via videoconferencing technology. While previous studies have focused on the use of MoCA-T in specific patient populations, here, we demonstrate the validity of this screening tool in a mixed-clinical sample, which suggests its broader use in clinical settings for distinguishing between neurocognitive disorders, regardless of the underlying etiology.

The COVID-19 pandemic increased utilization of remote assessment to allow clinicians and researchers to continue valuable work while maintaining quarantine guidelines. With guidelines relaxing, researchers have returned to in-person assessment. Information is needed regarding the effect of remote assessments on test-retest reliability. COGNET, a longitudinal study of cognition in participants with essential tremor, transitioned from in-person to remote assessments during the pandemic, and has now returned to in-person assessment. The current study investigates the extent to which remote assessment affected test-retest reliability across a range of neuropsychological assessments administered in COGNET.

Participants included 27 older adults enrolled in COGNET (mean age=75.0 (9.1), education=16.2 (2.6), 67% female, and 100% white). Memory tests included: California Verbal Learning Test II, Logical Memory subtest of the Wechsler Memory Scales - Revised, and Verbal Paired? Associates. Executive function tests included: Digit Span Backwards and the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System subtests of Verbal Fluency, Sorting, and Color-Word. Attention tests included Oral Symbol Digit Modalities Test and Digit Span Forward. Language was assessed with the Boston Naming Test. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to examine test-retest reliability of InPerson to In-Person visits (P-P), and combination visits (e.g., In-Person to Remote (PR), and Remote to In-Person (R-P)). Following Koo & Li (2016), ICCs were interpreted as: >.90 excellent, .75-.90 good, .50-.74 moderate, and <.50 poor reliability. The Feldt approach was used to compare ICCs from P-P visits against ICCs calculated for combination visits (P-R or R-P), with the test statistic compared to an F distribution.

ICCs for person-to-person assessment ranged from .51 to .89. Memory test ICCs ranged from moderate to good (.51 to .80). Executive function test ICCs ranged from moderate to good (.55 to .89). The attention domain had moderate ICCs (.67 - .68). Language ICC was moderate (.70). ICCs for person-to-remote assessment ranged from .42 to .89. Memory tests ranged from moderate to good ICCs (.59 to .83). Executive function tests ranged from poor to good ICCs (.42 to .89). Attention ICCs were moderate to good (.55 to .79). The Language ICC was moderate (.72). ICCs for remote-to-person ranged from .48 to 86. Memory ICCs ranged from moderate to good (.59 to .86). Executive function ICCs ranged from poor to good (.48 to .83). Attention ICCs were moderate to good (.56 to .79). The Language ICC was good (.78). The only test for which an ICC from a combination visit was significantly lower than a person to person visit was Digit Span Backwards.

Test-retest reliability was moderate or better for all P-P assessments, consistent with the known psychometrics of these tests. Only one test of executive function showed lower reliability when remote assessment was introduced. From a broad standpoint, current results suggest that remote administration of neuropsychological tests can be used as a reliable substitute for in-person assessment for many measures, and suggest that caution be used when interpreting any change in Digit Span Backwards across person and remote assessments.