Inter-rater reliability of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX): Comparative data from non-clinician respondents—all raters are not equal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX) is used to obtain information about executive and emotional problems after neuropathology. The DEX is self-completed by the patient (DEX-S) and an independent rater such as a family member (DEX-I). This study examined the level of inter-rater agreement between either two or three non-clinician raters on the DEX-I in order to establish the reliability of DEX-I ratings. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Family members and/or carers of 60 people with mixed neuropathology completed the DEX-I. For each patient, DEX-I ratings were obtained from either two or three raters who knew the person well prior to brain injury. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: This study obtained two independent-ratings for 60 patients and three independent-ratings for 36 patients. Intra-class correlations revealed that there was only a modest level of agreement for items, sub-scale and total DEX scores between raters for their particular family member. Several individual DEX items had low reliability and ratings for the emotion sub-scale had the lowest level of agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Independent DEX ratings completed by two or more non-clinician raters show only moderate correlation. Suggestions are made for improving the reliability of DEX-I ratings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 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".