Comparing the Reliability of Virtual and In-Person Post-Stroke Neuropsychological Assessment with Language Tasks.

Objective: Neuropsychological testing is essential for both clinical and basic stroke research; however, the in-person nature of this testing is a limitation. Virtual testing overcomes the hurdles of geographic location, mobility issues and permits social distancing, yet its validity has received relatively little investigation, particularly in comparison with in-person testing.
Method: We expand on our prior findings of virtual testing feasibility by assessing virtual versus in-person administration of language and communication tasks with 48 left-hemisphere stroke patients (21 F, 27 M; mean age = 63.4 ± 12; mean years of education = 15.3 ± 3.5) in a quasi-test-retest paradigm. Each participant completed two testing sessions: one in their home and one in the research lab. Participants were assigned to one of the eight groups, with the testing condition (fully in-person, partially virtual), order of home session (first, second) and technology (iPad, Windows tablet) varied across groups.
Results: Across six speech-language tasks that utilized varying response modalities and interfaces, we found no significant difference in performance between virtual and in-person testing. However, our results reveal key considerations for successful virtual administration of neuropsychological tests, including technology complications and disparities in internet access.
Conclusions: Virtual administration of neuropsychological assessments demonstrates comparable reliability with in-person data collection involving stroke survivors, though technology issues must be taken into account.
(© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permission@oup.com.)