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.