Validity of the test for attentional performance in neurological post-COVID condition, 2025, Seibert et al.

SNT Gatchaman

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Staff member
Validity of the test for attentional performance in neurological post-COVID condition
Seibert, Susan; Eckert, Irina; Widmann, Catherine N.; Ebrahimi, Taraneh; Bösl, Fabian; Franke, Christiana; Prüss, Harald; Schultze, Joachim L.; Petzold, Gabor C.; Shirvani, Omid

Neurological post-COVID condition (PCC) often involves attentional deficits that impact daily functioning. Traditional paper-based tests, like the Trail-Making Test (TMT), may inadequately capture these impairments due to their short duration and dependence on numerical and alphabetic sequencing. This study evaluates the validity of three subtests of the computerized Test for Attentional Performance (TAP) as alternatives for detecting attentional impairments in PCC.

In the ongoing NEURO LC-19 DE study, 108 subjects aged 18 to 79 years, with PCC-related cognitive complaints (n = 67, 73% f) and healthy controls (n = 41, 56% f) underwent neuropsychological testing. The prevalence of impairment and classification ability of the TAP subtests were evaluated alongside standard paper-based tests, including the TMT and Montreal Cognitive Assessment, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and regression.

The TAP subtests identified significant impairments in sustained attention and processing speed in one-third of PCC patients, surpassing traditional tests in sensitivity, and classifying PCC with an AUC of 78%. Omissions in sustained attention significantly differentiated groups (OR = 1.14, p = 0.016, 95% CI [1.02–1.26]). Fatigue correlated with poorer performance on speed and accuracy (r > 0.30, p < 0.05).

Cognitive slowing is prevalent in neurological PCC but is scarcely captured by conventional assessments. The TAP’s computerized format with automated norming and independence from alphanumeric stimuli shows promise in improving the discriminatory ability for identifying attentional deficits in PCC patients.

Link | PDF | Nature Scientific Reports [Open Access]
 
I don’t quite understand how this validates the test. Didn’t they just measure «something», but we don’t really know what?
 
The paper said:
In this study, three subtests of the TAP (version 2.3.1) were administered: alertness, sustained attention and divided attention.
Trail making test said:
The TMT contains two subparts, both administered on paper38. The TMT-A requires individuals to connect circled numbers from 1 to 25 in ascending order. In the TMT-B, the task is to switch between digits in ascending order and letters in sequence of the alphabet when drawing the lines (e.g., 1-A-2-B-3-C etc.). Both parts should be completed as fast as possible, as the time is being tracked. There is a time limit of three and five minutes to complete, respectively. While TMT-A primarily assesses information processing speed, TMT-B requires mental flexibility and is the most commonly used test for divided attention and EF5.
 
I don’t quite understand how this validates the test. Didn’t they just measure «something», but we don’t really know what?
Yup. That's the eternal problem with medical research that isn't strictly biomedical. They never know what the real answer is, so they can only ever do their best, but without a hint as to what good, let alone perfect, looks like. It's a bit like competing locally, being the best around. It's not until you compete against a larger pool that you can know whether you're any good at it, or just the best out of people who are completely uncompetitive.

It mostly ends up like this, and to someone who's never seen a lion, it may look good enough:
gripsholmlion.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom