Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the potential of digital tools in clinical neuropsychology, prompting a shift from traditional paper-based assessments to digital alternatives. However, research on this topic remains limited. This study evaluates the usability of digital neuropsychological assessment tools and examines healthcare professionals' perceptions of their reliability and efficiency in clinical settings. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted at the Centro Neurolesi "Bonino-Pulejo." Healthcare professionals, including neuropsychologists and clinicians, were asked to alternate between digital and traditional paper-based assessments. The usability of the digital tools was measured using the System Usability Scale (SUS), while qualitative feedback was gathered through open-ended questions. RESULTS: A panel of 29 healthcare professionals participated in the study. The quantitative analysis of the SUS scores revealed a mean score of 89.48 (SD = 10.12) for the digital format and 81.38 (SD = 11.49) for the traditional format. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistically significant difference between the two conditions (p = 0.0003), indicating that participants found the digital tools to be more usable compared to the traditional assessment format. Key qualitative feedback indicated that participants appreciated the speed, efficiency, and reduced error rates of digital tools, with many noting improvements in data organization and reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study's single-center design, small sample size, and reliance on self-reported measures may limit the generalizability of the findings, the results underscore the high usability and effectiveness of digital neuropsychological assessments. Healthcare professionals reported improved efficiency, accuracy, and data organization, supporting the tool's potential integration into clinical practice. These findings underscore the promise of digital tools in modern neuropsychology, paving the way for future multicentric and longitudinal research to validate their broader applicability.