Performance of the CogState computerized battery in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging

Michelle M. Mielke, Mary M. Machulda, Clinton E. Hagen, Kelly K. Edwards, Rosebud O. Roberts, V. Shane Pankratz, David S. Knopman, Clifford R. Jack, Ronald C. Petersen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

45 Scopus citations


Introduction The feasibility and validity of brief computerized cognitive batteries at the population-level are unknown. Methods Nondemented participants (n = 1660, age 50-97 years) in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging completed the computerized CogState battery and standard neuropsychological battery. The correlation between tests was examined and comparisons between CogState performance on the personal computer (PC) and iPad (n = 331), and in the clinic vs. at home (n = 194), were assessed. Results We obtained valid data on greater than 97% of participants on each test. Correlations between the CogState and neuropsychological tests ranged from -0.462 to 0.531. Although absolute differences between the PC and iPad were small and participants preferred the iPad, performance on the PC was faster. Participants performed faster on Detection, One Card Learning, and One Back at home compared with the clinic. Discussion The computerized CogState battery, especially the iPad, was feasible, acceptable, and valid in the population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1367-1376
Number of pages10
JournalAlzheimer's and Dementia
Issue number11
StatePublished - Nov 2015


  • Cognitively normal
  • Computerized cognitive battery
  • Epidemiology
  • Mild cognitive impairment
  • Neuropsychology
  • Population-based cohort study

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Health Policy
  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Psychiatry and Mental health


Dive into the research topics of 'Performance of the CogState computerized battery in the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this