Cognitive Assessments for Older Adults: Which Ones are Used by Canadian Therapists and Why
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational therapists routinely evaluate cognition in older adults, yet little is known about which assessments they use and for what purposes. PURPOSE: To examine the standardised and non-standardised assessments used by occupational therapists to evaluate cognition. METHOD: A random sample of 1042 Canadian occupational therapists completed the questionnaire by e-mail, post, or Internet website (n=247, response rate: 24.5%). RESULTS: Respondents reported using 75 standardised and non-standardised measures. The assessments were grouped according to theoretical approach: bottom-up (assessment of cognitive components), top-down (assessment of function) and combined (either of above, plus interview). Theoretical approaches were used similarly across regions, despite differences in reporting of particular assessments. Therapists used more bottom-up assessments that were standardised, identified deficits, and easy to administer. They used more top-down assessments that were non-standardised, predicted function, and fit with their theoretical approach. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that standardised top-down assessments be developed to support evidence-based occupational therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".