Challenges in the practical application of the Vienna test system for assessing cognitive functions in the general, athletic and clinical populations: a global scoping review of experimental and observational studies.

Abstract

The Vienna Test System (VTS) is a widely used computerized tools for assessing psychology-related constructs in different populations. Our objectives were to (1) identify the available evidence on the use of VTS, (2) examine how research is conducted using VTS and, therefore, (3) draw attention to the challenges in the practical application of the VTS for assessing cognitive functions in general, athletic and clinical populations. A literature search following the JBI and PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews was conducted in September 2024 across four databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ELSEVIER Scopus, and EBSCOhost) to identify peer-reviewed articles reporting cognitive functions measured by at least one VTS cognitive test. Of the 79 identified articles, 24 used the VTS to assess cognitive function in the general population, while 41 and 14 studies recruited participants from the athletic and clinical populations, respectively. Our analysis revealed RT (36.7% of total articles, <i>n</i>&#x2009;=&#x2009;29), DT (35%, <i>n</i>&#x2009;=&#x2009;28), COG (34.2%, <i>n</i>&#x2009;=&#x2009;27), PP (19%, <i>n</i>&#x2009;=&#x2009;15) and LVT (16.5%, <i>n</i>&#x2009;=&#x2009;13) as the TOP 5 most popular tests in the VTS. Nevertheless, only two studies (2.5%, 2/79) received a modified JBI quality score above 70%, while 9 studies (11.4%, 9/79) scored between 50% and 70%. In addition, only 36.7% of the articles were published in Q1 journals, while almost one quarter (24%) were published in journals that do not even appear in the Scimago Journal Ranking. Overall, the wide spectrum of cognitive tests in the VTS has the potential to assess cognitive functions; however, quality assessments revealed that, e.g., the relatively poor experimental designs, lack of a control group, and inconsistent use of VTS tests of many included studies make it difficult to draw clear conclusions about their validity, feasibility, and reliability, highlighting the need for higher-quality studies.