This proof-of-concept investigation demonstrates the reliability and validity of the TICS-M-AI chatbot in assessing cognitive function in older adults, suggesting AI enhances accessibility.
The Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status-Modified (TICS-M) is a widely utilized tool for remotely assessing cognitive function, particularly among community-dwelling older adults who are unable to attend in-person evaluations. In healthcare, AI has the potential to enhance service delivery by increasing efficiency, expanding accessibility, and reducing the cost per service. Using a conversational AI chatbot, we automated administration of TICS-M (traditionally administered by psychologists), referring to this chatbot-administered version as TICS-M-AI. The aim was to investigate proof-of-concept for chatbot automation of cognitive assessment. We report three studies evaluating psychometric properties of TICS-M-AI and an additional study on safety. Study1: Concurrent validity of the TICS-M-AI was assessed by administration of the TICS-M (by Psychologist) and the TICS-M-AI to the same participants (n = 100), one week apart. Study 2: Test-retest reliability was assessed by administering the TICS-M-AI twice to each participant, one week apart (n = 82) and comparing results. Study 3: Construct validity was assessed by attempted replication, using TICS-M-AI data (n = 264), of a previously published study by Lindgren et al. (2019) of item response patterns observed using data obtained by traditional clinician administered TICS-M. Study 4: Safety was assessed by comparing rates of reported assessment-related distress between TICS-M (n = 100) and TICS-M-AI (n = 264) administrations. TICS-M-AI concurrent validity (r = 0.81, 88% classification agreement, κ = 0.73) with the TICS-M and good test-retest reliability (r = 0.76, ICC = 0.72, 83% agreement, κ = 0.65). Using the TICS-M-AI we replicated Lindgren et al. (2019) result which used the TICS-M. TICS-M-AI administered by an AI chatbot performed well compared to traditional TICS-M administration by a psychologist. TICS-M-AI is reliable, valid, and equally safe with added advantages of lower cost, scalability, and broader accessibility. Future research should address generalizability across diverse populations and refine AI adaptability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Serafimovska et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: