Speaker
Description
The need for updated and openly available normative data represents a crucial challenge in contemporary neuropsychological assessment. Traditional paper-and-pencil tests remain widely used in clinical practice, yet many still rely on outdated norms, often inaccessible due to commercial restrictions. These limitations affect diagnostic accuracy, undermine clinical autonomy, and compromise the validity and reliability of assessments.
These issues will be addressed through the case study of the recent Italian standardization of one of the most widely used paper-and-pencil screening tests, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA, version 8.1). Beyond providing updated normative values, this standardization incorporated cognitive reserve among the potential predictors of participants’ performance. This methodological choice responds to growing evidence on the protective role of cognitive reserve in age-related cognitive decline and its relevance in interpreting neuropsychological outcomes. Specifically, it was examined whether cognitive reserve could improve the accuracy of normative adjustments beyond traditional demographic and biological factors.
Finally, this study offered a practical case study to reflect on methodological and ethical issues related to the use of neuropsychological tests without openly available normative data. Accordingly, we will outline how Open Science principles can promote greater transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility in neuropsychological testing, ensuring tools remain valid, ethically sound, and clinically useful in diverse and evolving populations.
| If you're submitting a symposium talk, what's the symposium title? | Rethinking the Future of Cognitive Testing: When Tradition Meets Innovation, Technology, and Open Science |
|---|---|
| If you're submitting a symposium, or a talk that is part of a symposium, is this a junior symposium? | Yes |
