Use of the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform System of Task Analysis for persons with schizophrenia: A preliminary study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Task analysis that targets information processing skills is an essential tool to understanding difficulties encountered by people with schizophrenia in their daily activities. The purpose of this preliminary study was to explore the use of the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform (PRPP) System of Task Analysis for this clientele. The specific objectives were to describe information processing difficulties as measured by the PRPP and to examine preliminary evidence of construct validity and interrater reliability. METHODS: In the first part of this study, 10 participants with schizophrenia living in the community were assessed using the PRPP during both a simple and a complex meal preparation task. Community functioning was measured using the Independent Living Skills Survey. In the second part, interrater reliability was appraised using three trained raters, who scored 15 participants preparing the complex meal preparation task. RESULTS: Analysis of performance demonstrates that people with schizophrenia have difficulties especially in the Perceive and Plan quadrants of the PRPP and are more challenged in the complex task. The PRPP total score for the complex task is strongly related to the community functioning score. Results indicate good interrater reliability for the PRPP total score and moderate interrater reliability for the quadrant scores. CONCLUSION: Despite the small sample size, results from this preliminary study support the use of the PRPP System of Task Analysis to further explore the impact cognitive deficits have on daily task performance and thus on community functioning in people with schizophrenia.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".