Remote, Computerised Cognitive Assessment for Breast Cancer- and Treatment-Related Cognitive Dysfunction: Psychometric Characteristics of the Cogsuite Neurocognitive Battery.

James C. Root,Alexandra M. Gaynor,Anam Ahsan,Duane Jung,Elizabeth Schofield,Elizabeth Ryan,Yuelin Li,Tim A. Ahles
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acac111
2023-01-01
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Abstract:Objective Cancer-related cognitive dysfunction (CRCD) is a significant concern for breast cancer survivors. The Cogsuite battery was developed to improve sensitivity to CRCD with the use of cognitive experimental measures, clarify specific cognitive processes impacted and to be capable of being administered either in-office or remotely. Methods In sum, 357 breast cancer survivors and non-cancer controls completed the Cogsuite Battery in-office (n = 76) or remotely (n = 281). Measure validity, sensitivity to demographic factors, correlations with standard neuropsychological measures and intercorrelations of Cogsuite variables were assessed. Test-retest reliability was evaluated in-office (n = 24) and remotely (n = 80). Results Test-retest reliability for most variables assessed was adequate to strong. Internal validity, as indicated by the confirmation of expected condition effects within each measure, was established for all measures. Assessment of external validity found age, but not education, was a significant predictor in the majority of measures. Assessment of criterion validity found that Cogsuite variables were correlated with standard measures in psychomotor speed, working memory and executive function, but not associated with self-reported cognition or mood. Conclusions Cogsuite is reliable and valid, and is sensitive to the effects of increasing age on cognition. The addition of the Cogsuite battery to standard assessment may improve sensitivity to CRCD and identify underlying processes that may be affected. Remote use of the Cogsuite battery in appropriate settings will lessen the burden for providers, researchers and survivors in research and clinical contexts.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?