Comparing performance across in-person and videoconference-based administrations of common neuropsychological measures in community-based survivors of stroke.

Abstract

Objective: Neuropsychological assessment via videoconference could assist in bridging service access gaps due to geographical, mobility, or infection control barriers. We aimed to compare performances on neuropsychological measures across in-person and videoconference-based administrations in community-based survivors of stroke.

Method: Participants were recruited through a stroke-specific database and community advertising. Stroke survivors were eligible if they had no upcoming neuropsychological assessment, concurrent neurological and/or major psychiatric diagnoses, and/or sensory, motor, or language impairment that would preclude standardised assessment. Thirteen neuropsychological measures were administered in-person and via videoconference in a randomised crossover design (2-week interval). Videoconference calls were established between two laptop computers, facilitated by Zoom. Repeated-measures t tests, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare performance across conditions.

Results: Forty-eight participants (26 men; Mage = 64.6, SD = 10.1; Mtime since stroke = 5.2 years, SD = 4.0) completed both sessions on average 15.8 (SD = 9.7) days apart. For most measures, the participants did not perform systematically better in a particular condition, indicating agreement between administration methods. However, on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test - Revised, participants performed poorer in the videoconference condition (Total Recall Mdifference = -2.11). ICC estimates ranged from .40 to .96 across measures.

Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that in-person and videoconference assessment result in comparable scores for most neuropsychological tests evaluated in mildly impaired community-based survivors of stroke. This preliminary evidence supports teleneuropsychological assessment to address service gaps in stroke rehabilitation; however, further research is needed in more diverse stroke samples.