TY - JOUR
T1 - Trail Making Test
T2 - Comparison of paper-and-pencil and electronic versions
AU - Bracken, Magdalene R.
AU - Mazur-Mosiewicz, Anya
AU - Glazek, Kuba
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
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
C2 - 30265569
AN - SCOPUS:85054164734
SN - 2327-9095
VL - 26
SP - 522
EP - 532
JO - Applied Neuropsychology:Adult
JF - Applied Neuropsychology:Adult
IS - 6
ER -