Computer and tablet assessments of executive function in youth with Down syndrome: feasibility and predictors of performance.

Emily K Schworer, Anna J Esbensen
Author Information
  1. Emily K Schworer: Waisman Center, University of WI Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
  2. Anna J Esbensen: Division of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

Abstract

Background: Feasibility of direct assessments is at the forefront of preparation for future clinical trials targeting cognition and executive functioning for individuals with Down syndrome (DS). This study aimed to assess feasibility and predictors of task completion for computer-facilitated executive function assessments in youth with DS.
Methods: Participants were 77 individuals with DS 6 to 19 years old. Five computer/tablet-based assessments of executive function were administered. Overall cognitive abilities were directly assessed, and caregivers reported on adaptive behaviours.
Results: Feasibility of the measures ranged from 33.8 - 75.3%. Participants able to complete each computer/tablet assessment were generally older and had higher adaptive skill levels and higher cognitive abilities compared to those who could not complete the tasks. Chronological age and adaptive behaviours emerged as significant unique contributors to variance of computer/tablet assessment completion.
Conclusion: Understanding developmental skills that support computer-facilitated assessment completion is important for evaluating the appropriateness of these assessments in individuals with DS. Strategies for increasing feasibility and suggestions for modifications to computer/tablet assessments are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017 May;122(3):215-234 [PMID: 28452581]
  2. J Neurodev Disord. 2014;6(1):16 [PMID: 26491488]
  3. Am J Ment Retard. 2005 Jul;110(4):312-22 [PMID: 15941367]
  4. J Neurodev Disord. 2016 Sep 06;8(1):35 [PMID: 27602170]
  5. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2010 Apr;54(4):308-19 [PMID: 20202074]
  6. J Neurodev Disord. 2012 Feb 08;4(1):2 [PMID: 22958782]
  7. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2019 May;124(3):220-233 [PMID: 31026204]
  8. Res Dev Disabil. 2016 Dec;59:437-450 [PMID: 27744268]
  9. Am J Ment Retard. 2004 Nov;109(6):456-66 [PMID: 15471512]
  10. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2022 Jan;66(1-2):195-211 [PMID: 33763953]
  11. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2017 Sep;61(9):877-887 [PMID: 28726285]
  12. Neurology. 2020 Mar 24;94(12):e1229-e1240 [PMID: 32094241]
  13. Int Rev Res Dev Disabil. 2022;62:191-225 [PMID: 36213318]
  14. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2012 Feb;56(2):157-66 [PMID: 21726323]
  15. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011 Jul;116(4):290-304 [PMID: 21740257]
  16. Wellcome Open Res. 2016 Nov 15;1:11 [PMID: 28018980]
  17. F1000Res. 2016 Mar 23;5: [PMID: 27019699]
  18. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2000;6(2):84-95 [PMID: 10899801]
  19. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2014 Jul;119(4):303-18 [PMID: 25007296]
  20. Occup Ther Health Care. 2011 Jan;25(1):7-25 [PMID: 23898980]
  21. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Mar 15;20(6): [PMID: 36982110]
  22. J Neurodev Disord. 2018 Jan 29;10(1):5 [PMID: 29378508]
  23. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2010 Nov;54(11):943-54 [PMID: 20704634]
  24. Brain Sci. 2018 Nov 26;8(12): [PMID: 30486228]
  25. Birth Defects Res. 2019 Nov 1;111(18):1420-1435 [PMID: 31580536]
  26. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017 May;122(3):247-281 [PMID: 28452584]
  27. Am J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2011 May;116(3):181-204 [PMID: 21591843]

Grants

  1. P50 HD105353/NICHD NIH HHS
  2. R01 HD093754/NICHD NIH HHS
  3. T32 HD007489/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0assessmentsexecutiveDSfeasibilityfunctionindividualscompletionadaptivecomputer/tabletassessmentFeasibilitycognitionsyndromepredictorscomputer-facilitatedyouthParticipantscognitiveabilitiesbehavioursmeasurescompletehigherBackground:directforefrontpreparationfutureclinicaltrialstargetingfunctioningstudyaimedassesstaskMethods:77619 yearsoldFivecomputer/tablet-basedadministeredOveralldirectlyassessedcaregiversreportedResults:ranged338 - 753%ablegenerallyolderskilllevelscomparedtasksChronologicalageemergedsignificantuniquecontributorsvarianceConclusion:UnderstandingdevelopmentalskillssupportimportantevaluatingappropriatenessStrategiesincreasingsuggestionsmodificationsdiscussedComputertabletsyndrome:performanceoutcometrisomy21

Similar Articles

Cited By