Key result
The Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) was found to be a reliable neurocognitive tool that compared favorably to other computer-based assessments in 224 U.S. service members.
Why the study?
Is the Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) a reliable neurocognitive assessment tool compared to other computer-based assessments in active duty U.S. service members?
Observational (n=224)
Yes
Is the Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) a reliable neurocognitive assessment tool compared to other computer-based assessments in active duty U.S. service members?
DANA is a reliable, field-deployable neurocognitive assessment tool suitable for use in far-forward military settings.
Supports DANA deployment for neurocognitive assessment in austere military settings; extends validation of portable tools across operational environments.
The Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) is a new neurocognitive assessment tool that includes a library of standardized cognitive and psychological assessments, with three versions that range from a brief 5-minute screen to a 45-minute complete assessment. DANA is written using the Android open-source operating system and is suitable for multiple mobile platforms. This article presents testing of DANA by 224 active duty U.S. service members in five operationally relevant environments (desert, jungle, mountain, arctic, and shipboard). DANA was found to be a reliable instrument and compared favorably to other computer-based neurocognitive assessments. Implications for using DANA in far-forward military settings are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lathan et al. (2013) reported an observational. Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) vs. Other computer-based neurocognitive assessments was evaluated on Reliability and comparability to other computer-based neurocognitive assessments. The Defense Automated Neurobehavioral Assessment (DANA) was found to be a reliable neurocognitive tool that compared favorably to other computer-based assessments in 224 U.S. service members.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: