Abstract
Objective
Rapid automatized naming (RAN) tasks have been utilized for decades to evaluate neurological conditions. Time scores for the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES, rapid picture naming) and Staggered Uneven Number (SUN, rapid number naming) are prolonged (worse) with concussion, mild cognitive impairment, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. The purpose of this investigation was to compare paper/pencil versions of MULES and SUN with a new digitized format, the MICK app.
Methods
Participants (healthy office-based volunteers, professional women's hockey players), completed two trials of the MULES and SUN tests on both platforms (tablet, paper/pencil). The order of presentation of the testing platforms was randomized. Between-platform variability was calculated using the two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results
Among 59 participants (median age 32, range 22–83), no significant differences were observed for comparisons of mean best scores for the paper/pencil versus MICK app platforms, counterbalanced for order of administration (P = 0.45 for MULES, P = 0.50 for SUN, linear regression). ICCs for agreement between the MICK and paper/pencil tests were 0.92 (95% CI 0.86, 0.95) for MULES and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89, 0.96) for SUN, representing excellent levels of agreement. Inter-platform differences did not vary systematically across the range of average best time score for either test.
Conclusion
The MICK app for digital administration of MULES and SUN demonstrates excellent agreement of time scores with paper/pencil testing. The computerized app allows for greater accessibility and scalability in neurological diseases, inclusive of remote monitoring. Sideline testing for sports-related concussion may also benefit from this technology.
Rapid automatized naming (RAN) tasks have been utilized for decades to evaluate neurological conditions. Time scores for the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES, rapid picture naming) and Staggered Uneven Number (SUN, rapid number naming) are prolonged (worse) with concussion, mild cognitive impairment, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease. The purpose of this investigation was to compare paper/pencil versions of MULES and SUN with a new digitized format, the MICK app.
Methods
Participants (healthy office-based volunteers, professional women's hockey players), completed two trials of the MULES and SUN tests on both platforms (tablet, paper/pencil). The order of presentation of the testing platforms was randomized. Between-platform variability was calculated using the two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
Results
Among 59 participants (median age 32, range 22–83), no significant differences were observed for comparisons of mean best scores for the paper/pencil versus MICK app platforms, counterbalanced for order of administration (P = 0.45 for MULES, P = 0.50 for SUN, linear regression). ICCs for agreement between the MICK and paper/pencil tests were 0.92 (95% CI 0.86, 0.95) for MULES and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89, 0.96) for SUN, representing excellent levels of agreement. Inter-platform differences did not vary systematically across the range of average best time score for either test.
Conclusion
The MICK app for digital administration of MULES and SUN demonstrates excellent agreement of time scores with paper/pencil testing. The computerized app allows for greater accessibility and scalability in neurological diseases, inclusive of remote monitoring. Sideline testing for sports-related concussion may also benefit from this technology.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | 120150 |
| Journal | Journal of the Neurological Sciences |
| Volume | 434 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 15 2022 |