71 Examining the Psychometric Validity of NeuroScreen to Assess Neurocognition in Hospitalized Psychosis Patients in Uganda

Objective: People with psychotic disorders often experience neurocognitive deficits, such as neurocognitive impairment (NCI), which can negatively affect their daily activities (e.g., performing independent tasks) and recovery. Because of this, the American Psychology Association advocates integrating neurocognitive testing into routine care for people living with psychotic disorders, especially those in their first episode, to inform treatment and improve clinical outcomes. However, in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs), such as Uganda where the current study took place, administering neurocognitive tests in healthcare settings presents numerous challenges. In Uganda there are few resources (e.g., trained clinical staff, and culturally relevant and normed tests) to routinely offer testing in healthcare settings. NeuroScreen is a brief, highly automated, tablet-based neurocognitive testing tool that can be administered by all levels of healthcare staff and has been translated into indigenous Ugandan languages. To examine the psychometric properties of NeuroScreen , we measured convergent and criterion validity of the NeuroScreen tests by comparing performance on them to performance on a traditional battery of neurocognitive tests widely used to assess neurocognition in people with psychotic disorders, the Matric Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB). Participants and Methods: Sixty-five patients admitted into Butabika Mental Referral Hospital in Uganda after experiencing a psychotic episode and forty-seven demographically similar control participants completed two neurocognitive test batteries: the MCCB and NeuroScreen . Both batteries include tests measuring the neurocognitive domains of executive functioning, working memory, verbal learning, and processing speed. Prior to completing each battery, patients were medically stabilized and could not exhibit any positive symptoms on the day of testing. On the day of testing, medication dosages were scheduled so that patients would not experience sedative effects while testing. To examine convergent validity, we examined correlations between overall performance on NeuroScreen and the MCCB, as well as tests that measured the same neurocognitive domains. To examine criterion validity, an ROC curve was computed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of NeuroScreen to detect NCI as defined by the MCCB. Results: There was a large correlation between overall performance on NeuroScreen and the MCCB battery of tests, r(110) = .65, p < .001. Correlations of various strengths were found among tests measuring the same neurocognitive domains in each battery: executive functioning [r(110) = .56 p <.001], processing speed [r(110) = .44, p <.001)], working memory [r(110) = .29, p<.01], and verbal learning [r(110) = .22, p < .01]. ROC analysis of the ability of NeuroScreen to detect MCCB defined NCI showed an area under curve of .798 and optimal sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 60%, respectively. Conclusions: Overall test performance between the NeuroScreen and MCCB test batteries was similar in this sample of Ugandans with and without a psychotic disorder, with the strongest correlations in tests of executive functioning and processing speed. ROC analysis provided criterion validity evidence of NeuroScreen to detect MCCB defined NCI. These results provide support for use of NeuroScreen to assess neurocognitive functioning among patients with psychotic disorders in Uganda, however more work needs to be to determine how well it can be implemented in this setting. Future directions include assessing cultural acceptability of NeuroScreen and generating normative data from a larger population of Ugandan test-takers.