Reliability of the Cooking Task in adults with acquired brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acquired brain injury (ABI) often leads to deficits in executive functioning (EF) responsible for severe and long-standing disabilities in daily life activities. The Cooking Task is an ecological and valid test of EF involving multi-tasking in a real environment. Given its complex scoring system, it is important to establish the tool's reliability. The objective of the study was to examine the reliability of the Cooking Task (internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability). A total of 160 patients with ABI (113 men, mean age 37 years, SD = 14.3) were tested using the Cooking Task. For test-retest reliability, patients were assessed by the same rater on two occasions (mean interval 11 days) while two raters independently and simultaneously observed and scored patients' performances to estimate inter-rater reliability. Internal consistency was high for the global scale (Cronbach α = .74). Inter-rater reliability (n = 66) for total errors was also high (ICC = .93), however the test-retest reliability (n = 11) was poor (ICC = .36). In general the Cooking Task appears to be a reliable tool. The low test-retest results were expected given the importance of EF in the performance of novel tasks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".