An exploration of the ecological validity of the Virtual Action Planning–Supermarket (VAP-S) with people with schizophrenia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with schizophrenia often have functional limitations that affect their daily activities due to executive function deficits. One way to assess these deficits is through the use of virtual reality programmes that reproduce real-life instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). One such programme is the Virtual Action Planning-Supermarket (VAP-S). This exploratory study aimed to examine the ecological validity of this programme, specifically, how task performance in both virtual and natural environments compares. Case studies were used and involved five participants with schizophrenia, who were familiar with grocery shopping. They were assessed during both the VAP-S shopping task and a real-life grocery shopping task using an observational assessment tool, the Perceive, Recall, Plan and Perform (PRPP) System of Task Analysis. The results show that when difficulties were present in the virtual task, difficulties were also observed in the real-life task. For some participants, greater difficulties were observed in the virtual task. These difficulties could be explained by the presence of perceptual deficits and problems remembering the required sequenced actions in the virtual task. In conclusion, performance on the VAP-S by these five participants was generally comparable to the performance in a natural environment.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it