Hierarchical regression reveals how neurocognitive domains impact performance on VESTA, suggesting implications for financial exploitation risk.
Objective The Virtual Economic Simulator and Trust Assessment (VESTA) is a novel method of Financial Exploitation (FE) risk assessment administered through a smartphone application. This study explores how the domains of neurocognitive functioning relate to performance on VESTA. Method Participants (N = 58; M[age] = 71.0; 58.6% Female) were administered VESTA and neuropsychological measures (Attention: Continuous Performance Test-III Detectability, Hit Reaction Time [HRT], and HRT Block Change; Executive Functioning [EF]: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test – Total Errors and Perseverative Responses; Memory: California Verbal Learning Test-II – Short and Long Delay Free Recall [CVLT-SD/LD]; Visuospatial: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV – Block Design [WAIS-BD] and Neuropsychological Assessment Battery – Visual Discrimination and Design Construction). Results Multiple hierarchical regression models (controlling for age and education) estimated VESTA performance. In all models, both Step 1 (demographic controls) and Step 2 (neurocognitive domain representatives) were significant (p < .001). The EF domain (Adj-R2 = .503) showed the highest accounted variance, followed by Visuospatial (Adj-R2 = .366), Attention (Adj-R2 = .352), and Memory (Adj-R2 = .336). WAIS-BD was the only significant predictor in the Visuospatial model (β = 0.42, p = .003). Conclusion Aligning with previous research, EF accounted for the most variance in FE risk. Although long-delayed memory measures are typically stronger predictors of impairment, the CVLT-SD contributed more to the memory domain, suggesting an emphasis on the attentional domain processes that must occur before encoding can take place. Additionally, visuospatial abilities emerged as a stronger predictor of FE risk than previous research suggested compared to other domains (e.g., attention).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boynton et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: