This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cameron, E. Articles by Tiplady, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cameron, E. Articles by Tiplady, B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Validity and sensitivity of a pen computer battery of performance tests

W. Sinclair

AstraZeneca UK Clinical Research Group, Edinburgh and Department of Anaesthetics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

B. Tiplady

AstraZeneca UK Clinical Research Group, Edinburgh and Department of Anaesthetics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; brian.tiplady{at}astrazeneca.com

This study compared administration of performance tests and visual analogue scales (VAS) using a newly developed pen computer (PenC) battery with established tests using either pencil-and-paper (PP) or conventional computer. The performance of 47 subjects (23 male, age 18–45 years, weight 51–112 kg) was compared on the two systems after a dose of ethanol (0.8 g/kg up to a maximum of 60 g for males, 50 g for females) or placebo in a double-blind two-period randomized crossover study. Mean (SD) blood ethanol concentrations (breathalyser) were 94.5 mg/100 ml (21.9) at the start of the test battery (30 min post-drink) and 80.2 (13.0) at the end of the battery (75 min post-drink). Ethanol effects were found in all tests, with most outcome measures showing significant slowing or loss of accuracy. Results from the Rapid Visual Information Processing, Sentence Verification and Continuous Attention tasks show that the ethanol–placebo difference and the statistical significance of this difference are in close correspondence for the two modes of administration. The pen computer versions of these tasks may therefore be used as direct replacements for the previous versions. Digit–Symbol and maze tasks did not correspond so closely both showing differences in the speed-accuracy trade-off between the two modes. These tests, however, are sensitive to the effects of ethanol, and may be useful in their own right. Principal component analysis suggested that VAS may be grouped into two factors: (1) ‘functional integrity’, including measures of alertness and perceived proficiency, and (2) ‘mood’, including happiness and sociability. Factor 1 showed substantial effects of ethanol, while factor 2 was unchanged. There was close agreement between the results from PP and PenC for both factors as well as for the Sober-Drunk scale, which showed the expected effects of ethanol. Thus pen computer VAS perform in a similar way to the PP versions.

Key Words: cognitive testing • maze tasks • pen computers • psychomotor performance • reaction times • validatio

Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 15, No. 2, 105-110 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/026988110101500207


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Duarte, A. McNeill, G. Drummond, and B. Tiplady Comparison of the sedative, cognitive, and analgesic effects of nitrous oxide, sevoflurane, and ethanol Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2008; 100(2): 203 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Acons, L.-s. Chan, G. Drummond, and B. Tiplady Effects of ethanol and promethazine on awareness of errors and judgements of performance J Psychopharmacol, September 1, 2006; 20(5): 661 - 669. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Tiplady, R. Baird, H. Lutcke, G. Drummond, and P. Wright Effects of ethanol on kinaesthetic perception J Psychopharmacol, November 1, 2005; 19(6): 627 - 632. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Tiplady, E. Bowness, L. Stien, and G. Drummond Selective effects of clonidine and temazepam on attention and memory J Psychopharmacol, May 1, 2005; 19(3): 259 - 265. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Tiplady, J. Hiroz, L. Holmes, and G. Drummond Errors in performance testing: a comparison of ethanol and temazepam J Psychopharmacol, January 1, 2003; 17(1): 41 - 49. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Farquhar, K. Lambert, G. B. Drummond, B. Tiplady, and P. Wright Effect of ethanol on psychomotor performance and on risk taking behaviour J Psychopharmacol, July 1, 2002; 16(4): 379 - 384. [Abstract] [PDF]