MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004837161 · doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12024

Stroke‐specific executive function assessment: A literature review of performance‐based tools

2013· review· en· W2004837161 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valérie Poulin, Nicol Korner‐Bitensky, Deirdre Dawson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalHeart and Stroke FoundationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyRehabilitationStroke (engine)Clinical psychologyFace validityOccupational therapyPsychometricsCronbach's alphaPhysical medicine and rehabilitationReliability (semiconductor)MedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/AIM: Executive function should be an integral component of post-stroke assessment. However, a Canada-wide survey of occupational therapists on stroke rehabilitation practices found a rare use of executive function assessments. Performance-based executive function assessments that closely reflect real-world activities are useful in identifying individuals who will face difficulties when returning to home and community activities. To increase clinicians' awareness of these tools, a literature review was conducted to identify performance-based measures of executive function and their stroke-specific psychometric properties. METHODS: The review identified 17 performance-based tools and 41 studies that reported their psychometric properties specific to stroke. Each tool was critically appraised according to the executive function components assessed, the level of functioning assessed (i.e. impairment, activity or participation), the environment within which the assessment is conducted and the tool's psychometric properties and clinical utility. Standard criteria were used to evaluate the tools' psychometric properties. The findings were compiled in a Stroke-Specific Executive Function Toolkit. RESULTS: The assessments that demonstrated the strongest evidence of reliability and validity were the Executive Function Performance Test, the Multiple Errands Test and the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills. Only the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills has been adequately evaluated for its ability to detect change. In terms of clinical utility, the Kettle Test has the shortest administration time (i.e. less than 20 minutes) and requires limited equipment. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: The Stroke-Specific Executive Function Toolkit provides clinicians with useful information that should facilitate identification of appropriate executive function tools for use across the continuum of stroke care.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0170.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Occupational Therapy JournalSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207