基于微信的视觉再生测验软件的研发和信效度研究

Reliability and validity of a WeChat-based visual reproduction test tool

目的研发基于微信平台的视觉再生测验软件,用于认知功能的视觉记忆评估。方法根据视觉再生测验纸质量表,设计研发相应的微信版量表。将26名受试者随机分为两组,每组13名,均进行两个试验阶段(第Ⅰ、Ⅱ阶段)。一组先施测纸质版量表后施测微信版量表,另一组的施测顺序则相反,两组的两个试验阶段间隔时间均>2个月。3个月后对所有受试者进行微信版量表的重测。对处理因素、试验阶段和受试者间测验结果的个体差异进行方差分析,对纸质版与微信版量表的测验结果进行一致性评价,评估微信版视觉再生测验的重测信度。结果纸质版视觉再生测验第Ⅰ、Ⅱ阶段总的测验结果为(14.65±0.69)分,微信版视觉再生测验第Ⅰ、Ⅱ阶段总的测验结果为(14.88±0.43)分。对视觉再生测验方式(纸质版、微信版)、试验阶段(第Ⅰ、Ⅱ阶段)和各受试者间测验结果个体差异进行的方差分析结果显示,不同测验方式对视觉再生测验结果的影响无统计学意义(F=3.323,P=0.810,1-β=0.417),即纸质版与微信版两种测验方式的结果无差别;试验阶段对测验结果的影响无统计学意义(F=1.477,P=0.236,1-β=0.215),即接受微信版和纸质版测验的先后顺序对视觉再生测验的结果的影响无统计学意义;各受试者间测验结果的差异有统计学意义(F=2.156,P=0.032,1-β=0.915),表明不同个体认知功能的视觉记忆存在个体差异。组内相关系数ICC分析结果显示,纸质版与微信版视觉再生测验结果的一致性尚可(ICC=0.339,95%CI为-0.480～0.637,P=0.042)。Bland-Altman图分析结果显示,微信版与纸质版视觉再生测验结果具有良好的一致性。采用ICC(两因素混合效应模型,单个测量)评估微信版视觉再生测验的重测信度,得到ICC=0.612,95%CI为0.308～0.804,P=0.000 3,认为微信版视觉再生测验软件的重测信度较好。结论基于微信的视觉再生测验软件信效度良好,未来可能代替纸质量表用于视觉记忆的评估。

Objective To develop a visual reproduction test software based on WeChat platform for visual memory assessment of cognitive function. Methods A WeChat-based tool was developed according to the paper and pencil version of visual reproduction test. Twenty-six participants were randomly divided into two groups(13 participants in each group and the test was divided in phase Ⅰ and Ⅱ) and received the tests through traditional and WeChat-based methods with an interval of more than 2 months. The order of two tests differed between the two groups. All the participants were retested with the WeChat-based test 3 months later. We performed analysis of variances on test methods, test stage and subjects, evaluated the intraclass correlation coefficients(ICC) between the paper and pencil version and WeChat version of visual reproduction test, and calculated the test-retest reliability of the WeChat version test tool. Results The participants exhibited a mean score of 14.65±0.69 in the paper and pencil version of visual reproduction test, and a mean of 14.88±0.43 in the WeChat version of visual reproduction test. Analysis of variance showed no statistical difference between the results of the two test methods(F=3.322, P=0.81, 1-β=0.417). The test stage had no effect on the results(F=1.477, P=0.236, 1-β=0.215), indicating that, the order of receiving the WeChat version and the paper and pencil version test had no effect on the results of the visual reproduction test. There was significant difference in test results between the subjects(F=2.156, P=0.032, 1-β=0.915), indicating that there were individual differences in visual memory of cognitive function. The agreement between the two methods was considered to be fair(ICC=0.339, 95%CI=-0.480-0.637, P=0.042). Bland-Altman plot showed good agreement between the two methods. Test-retest reliability of the WeChat-based tool was good(ICC=0.612, 95%CI=0.308-0.804, P=0.000 3). Conclusion It is preliminarily believed that the WeChat-based visual reproduction test tool has good reliability and validity, and may be an alternative for visual memory evaluation.