Scoping review of the Multiple Errands Test: Is it relevant to youths with acquired brain injury?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction For youths who sustain acquired brain injuries, distinguishing typical development of executive function from the impairment(s) can be a challenging but critical assessment consideration. Occupational therapists working with individuals after brain injury can use the Multiple Errands Test as a performance-based assessment of the effect of executive dysfunction in the real world. Although numerous test versions exist for different settings and diagnostic populations, their relevance to youths is unclear. We surveyed the non-virtual reality literature for test versions to determine the measurement properties and clinical utility for assessing youths in a community setting. Method A scoping review was completed to summarize study purpose/design, Multiple Errands Test structure, assessment environment, sample characteristics, psychometric properties, clinical utility and main findings of the test versions. Results We included 10 quantitative studies and found the strongest reliability and validity evidence for male adults with moderate to severe acquired brain injury, in a hospital setting. Multiple Errands Test versions can distinguish people with brain injury from controls and identify challenges in the home and community. No studies examined the test performance of younger participants. Conclusion This review highlights the research of several Multiple Errands Test versions and identifies gaps in that research, including the need for development of a test version for youths in a community setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".