MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800773125 · doi:10.15557/pipk.2018.0004

Subjective executive difficulties – a study using the Dysexecutive Questionnaire

2018· article· en· W2800773125 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ewa Małgorzata Szepietowska, Anna Kuzaka

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyDysexecutive syndromeExecutive functionsClinical psychologyPsychiatryCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Subjective executive difficulties, understood as a sense of disruption of planning, control and correction of one’s own activity, is often reported by healthy as well as clinical individuals. Self-report measures such as the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX-S) are used to assess the severity of this feeling. The diagnostic value of this method is debated due to the numerous factors affecting the beliefs on executive deficits. Aim of the study: With reference to inconclusive data concerning the underlying factors of subjective executive deficits and the value of self-report measures the following aims of the present study were established: a) determination of the demographic, clinical and cognitive characteristics of individuals with various levels of subjective executive difficulties, b) finding which of these variables contribute to the risk of subjective executive difficulties increase. Material and methods: The study included 213 adult individuals. DEX-S as well as measures of cognitive assessment (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA; subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, WAIS-R) and depressive mood assessment [Geriatric Depression Scale (Short Form), GDS-15] were used. Demographic variables (age, gender and educational level) as well as clinical variables (lack of/presence of central nervous system disease history, including lateralised brain pathology) were also taken into consideration. Based on DEX-S results a cluster analysis was performed and two groups of subjects with a different level of subjective executive difficulties were identified: low-severity group (individuals reporting no complaints regarding executive deficits) and high-severity group (individuals with complaints). Group comparisons demonstrated that individuals complaining about executive deficits have a higher depressive mood index and lower scores on some subtests used to assess cognitive functions. The results of logistic regression analysis suggest that the risk of executive difficulties complaints increases with the severity of depressive mood. In contrast, higher attentional performance reduces the possibility of complaints. No interaction effect was observed between these two factors. Conclusions: Based on the results it can be assumed that there are independent protective mechanisms against subjective executive difficulties as well as mechanisms that exacerbate them, which indicates the need for psychological intervention (e.g. cognitive training and/or psychotherapy) adjusted to the mechanism of the complaint.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatria i Psychologia KlinicznaSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207