Table 2.
Average time spent on the pilot VISION-Cog together with data collector’s evaluations from the first pilot study
| Time spent* (min) | Data collector’s evaluations† | |
| Formalities | ||
| Consent taking and test explanation | 5.8±1.1 | |
| Tactile-dependent tests | ||
| Modified Spatial Memory Test | 11.1±1.3 | 5 |
| Adapted Token Test | 6.4±1.1 | 5 |
| Digit Symbol | 5.5±0.8 | 5 |
| Modified Spatial Analysis (Shape Matching and Puzzle Construction) | 7.0±1.7 | 5 |
| Modified Spatial Analysis (Form Matching and Form Matching/Size Transformation) | 11.0±3.4 | 3 |
| Auditory-dependent tests | ||
| List Learning, List Recall and List Recognition | 8.1±1.3 | NA |
| Semantic Fluency | 1.5±0.1 | NA |
| Verbal Subtests of the Frontal Battery Assessment | 5.6±1.2 | NA |
| Digit Span Forwards | 1.9±0.6 | NA |
| Digit Span Backwards | 2.2±0.7 | NA |
| All pilot VISION-Cog tests | 60.2±6.1 | |
| All pilot VISION-Cog tests and formalities | 66.0±6.9 | |
*Time is presented as mean±SD.
†Data collector rated the user-friendliness of each test using a Likert scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being ‘Not user-friendly at all’ and 5 being ‘Very user-friendly’. The evaluations were obtained for the tactile tests only. All of the auditory tests have been used clinically in Singapore and thus, should have good comprehensibility and acceptability for the general population.
NA, not applicable; VISION-Cog, VISually Independent test battery Of NeuroCOGnition.