Cognitive assessment using face-to-face and videoconferencing methods
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence and practice    

Cognitive assessment using face-to-face and videoconferencing methods

Amanda Stead Associate professor, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon, United States
Monica Vinson Graduate assistant, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon, United States

Background Early and regular assessment is needed to identify cognitive impairment in older adults. The use of telehealth or telecognitive assessment is widely applied in some aspects of health services, but it is unclear if cognitive assessments conducted in this way are reliable.

Aim To examine whether using a handheld device to complete a cognitive assessment in adults can provide reliable scores, whether participants would be satisfied to complete a cognitive assessment by videoconference and if they would prefer face-to-face or telehealth assessment, and what challenges might be associated with telecognitive assessment using a handheld device compared with using face-to-face methods.

Method Participants (n=27) were given a series of cognitive assessments face to face and using a handheld device. Results were examined for reliability, logistical and technical challenges, and participants were questioned about which they preferred.

Results Cognitive assessments made with the handheld device were effective and reliable, and produced results that were comparable to those made with face-to-face assessments. However, more participants preferred face-to-face assessments than handheld device assessments. Several technical limitations were also noted during the assessments made using the handheld devices.

Conclusion Although scores made using the handheld device were reliable, preliminary evidence suggests there are some tangible barriers to integrating telehealth into all settings for all patients.

Nursing Older People. 31, 5, 34-39. doi: 10.7748/nop.2019.e1160

Correspondence

amanda.stead@pacificu.edu

Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Permission

To reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com

For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/writeforus

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more