MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183840396 · doi:10.1080/13803395.2015.1087468

Identifying instruments to quantify financial management skills in adults with acquired cognitive impairments

2015· review· en· W2183840396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthSt. Michael's HospitalBaycrest HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-RéadaptationUniversity of TorontoOntario Neurotrauma Foundation
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionFinanceCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Financial management skills-that is, the skills needed to handle personal finances such as banking and paying bills-are essential to a person's autonomy, independence, and community living. To date, no comprehensive review of financial management skills instruments exists, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to choose relevant instruments. The objectives of this review are to: (a) identify all available instruments containing financial management skill items that have been used with adults with acquired cognitive impairments; (b) categorize the instruments by source (i.e., observation based, self-report, proxy report); and (c) describe observation-based performance instruments by populations, overarching concepts measured, and comprehensiveness of financial management items. Objective (c) focuses on observation-based performance instruments as these measures can aid in situations where the person with cognitive impairment has poor self-awareness or where the proxy has poor knowledge of the person's current abilities. METHOD: Two reviewers completed two systematic searches of five databases. Instruments were categorized by reviewing published literature, copies of the instruments, and/or communication with instrument authors. Comprehensiveness of items was based on nine key domains of financial management skills developed by the authors. RESULTS: A total of 88 discrete instruments were identified. Of these, 44 were categorized as observation-based performance and 44 as self- and/or proxy-reports. Of the 44 observation-based performance instruments, 8 had been developed for acquired brain injury populations and 24 for aging and dementia populations. Only 7 of the observation-based performance instruments had items spanning 6 or more of the 9 financial management skills domains. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of instruments were developed for aging and dementia populations, and few were comprehensive. This review provides foundation for future instrument psychometric and clinimetric reviews. It a necessary first step in providing information to support decision making for clinicians and researchers selecting financial management skills instruments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.392 · 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