Trail Making Test: Comparison of paper-and-pencil and electronic versions

Magdalene R. Bracken, Anna Mazur-Mosiewicz, Kuba Glazek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Trail Making Test (TMT) was adapted for the iPad by Parker-O’Brien, which uses the 2004 Tombaugh norms. This study investigated the equivalency of this electronic test by (a) examining the test–retest reliability of the iPad-TMT, and (b) calculating the concurrent validity between the two versions. The sample included 77 healthy adults. Reliability was assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed by MANOVA. Results indicate that Part A of the iPad-TMT did not demonstrate adequate test–retest reliability over 1 week (r = 0.15–0.70); Part B demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability in the majority of groups (r = 0.33–0.80). Conversely, Part A of the electronic TMT demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, whereas Part B did not; however, validity in Part A has minimal significance without adequate reliability. Handedness had a significant effect on performance, with left-handers performing slower on the electronic TMT Part A (p <.05) and the traditional TMT Part B (p <.05). Clinicians should use caution when using electronic versions of traditional tests, as they may assess different constructs. New norms should be developed. The role of handedness on TMT performance should be further assessed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)522-532
Number of pages11
JournalApplied Neuropsychology:Adult
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 2 Nov 2019

Fingerprint

Trail Making Test
Functional Laterality

Keywords

  • Computerized applications
  • neuropsychological tests
  • neuropsychology
  • test construction

Cite this

@article{55ee8133f07b4f4fbea5ae756f410a34,
title = "Trail Making Test: Comparison of paper-and-pencil and electronic versions",
abstract = "The Trail Making Test (TMT) was adapted for the iPad by Parker-O’Brien, which uses the 2004 Tombaugh norms. This study investigated the equivalency of this electronic test by (a) examining the test–retest reliability of the iPad-TMT, and (b) calculating the concurrent validity between the two versions. The sample included 77 healthy adults. Reliability was assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed by MANOVA. Results indicate that Part A of the iPad-TMT did not demonstrate adequate test–retest reliability over 1 week (r = 0.15–0.70); Part B demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability in the majority of groups (r = 0.33–0.80). Conversely, Part A of the electronic TMT demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, whereas Part B did not; however, validity in Part A has minimal significance without adequate reliability. Handedness had a significant effect on performance, with left-handers performing slower on the electronic TMT Part A (p <.05) and the traditional TMT Part B (p <.05). Clinicians should use caution when using electronic versions of traditional tests, as they may assess different constructs. New norms should be developed. The role of handedness on TMT performance should be further assessed.",
keywords = "Computerized applications, neuropsychological tests, neuropsychology, test construction",
author = "Bracken, {Magdalene R.} and Anna Mazur-Mosiewicz and Kuba Glazek",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/23279095.2018.1460371",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "522--532",
journal = "Applied Neuropsychology:Adult",
issn = "2327-9095",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Trail Making Test : Comparison of paper-and-pencil and electronic versions. / Bracken, Magdalene R.; Mazur-Mosiewicz, Anna; Glazek, Kuba.

In: Applied Neuropsychology:Adult, Vol. 26, No. 6, 02.11.2019, p. 522-532.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Trail Making Test

T2 - Comparison of paper-and-pencil and electronic versions

AU - Bracken, Magdalene R.

AU - Mazur-Mosiewicz, Anna

AU - Glazek, Kuba

PY - 2019/11/2

Y1 - 2019/11/2

N2 - The Trail Making Test (TMT) was adapted for the iPad by Parker-O’Brien, which uses the 2004 Tombaugh norms. This study investigated the equivalency of this electronic test by (a) examining the test–retest reliability of the iPad-TMT, and (b) calculating the concurrent validity between the two versions. The sample included 77 healthy adults. Reliability was assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed by MANOVA. Results indicate that Part A of the iPad-TMT did not demonstrate adequate test–retest reliability over 1 week (r = 0.15–0.70); Part B demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability in the majority of groups (r = 0.33–0.80). Conversely, Part A of the electronic TMT demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, whereas Part B did not; however, validity in Part A has minimal significance without adequate reliability. Handedness had a significant effect on performance, with left-handers performing slower on the electronic TMT Part A (p <.05) and the traditional TMT Part B (p <.05). Clinicians should use caution when using electronic versions of traditional tests, as they may assess different constructs. New norms should be developed. The role of handedness on TMT performance should be further assessed.

AB - The Trail Making Test (TMT) was adapted for the iPad by Parker-O’Brien, which uses the 2004 Tombaugh norms. This study investigated the equivalency of this electronic test by (a) examining the test–retest reliability of the iPad-TMT, and (b) calculating the concurrent validity between the two versions. The sample included 77 healthy adults. Reliability was assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation and intraclass correlation coefficient, while validity was assessed by MANOVA. Results indicate that Part A of the iPad-TMT did not demonstrate adequate test–retest reliability over 1 week (r = 0.15–0.70); Part B demonstrated adequate test–retest reliability in the majority of groups (r = 0.33–0.80). Conversely, Part A of the electronic TMT demonstrated adequate concurrent validity, whereas Part B did not; however, validity in Part A has minimal significance without adequate reliability. Handedness had a significant effect on performance, with left-handers performing slower on the electronic TMT Part A (p <.05) and the traditional TMT Part B (p <.05). Clinicians should use caution when using electronic versions of traditional tests, as they may assess different constructs. New norms should be developed. The role of handedness on TMT performance should be further assessed.

KW - Computerized applications

KW - neuropsychological tests

KW - neuropsychology

KW - test construction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054164734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/23279095.2018.1460371

DO - 10.1080/23279095.2018.1460371

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85054164734

VL - 26

SP - 522

EP - 532

JO - Applied Neuropsychology:Adult

JF - Applied Neuropsychology:Adult

SN - 2327-9095

IS - 6

ER -