MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904797608 · doi:10.1177/0269215518819046

Validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen (S-OCS): psychometric properties of a short cognitive stroke-specific screening tool

2018· article· en· W2904797608 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Desirée Valera‐Gran, Sofía López-Roig, Miriam Hurtado‐Pomares, Paula Peral‐Gómez, Maria García‐Manzanares, Marta Sunyer Catlla, Gemma Más Sesé, Eva María Navarrete‐Muñoz, Alicia Sánchez‐Pérez

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStroke (engine)CognitionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen in a subacute stroke population. Participants and setting: Fifty-seven subacute stroke outpatients and 54 healthy individuals were recruited in Alicante province, Spain. Main measure: The Oxford Cognitive Screen. Other measures: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the Barcelona test, and the Barthel Index. Design: A validation study was conducted to analyze the inter-rater, intra-rater, test–retest, and internal consistency of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen. Concurrent validity was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Barcelona test, and divergent validity using the Barthel index. Discriminant indices such as the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and optimal cut-offs were also estimated. Results: The subtests of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen showed excellent estimates for the inter-reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.790 to 1.000; r s = 0.693 to 1.000), and acceptable-good for intra-reliability (ICC = 0.181 to 0.990) and test–retest reliability ( r s = 0.173 to 0.971). Internal consistency was also excellent (standardized Cronbach’s α = 0.907). Spearman correlations for the concurrent validity were low-strong ( r s = −0.193 to 0.95) and low-moderate ( r s = −0.091 to 0.443) for divergent validity. The optimal cut-offs estimated for the subtests of the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen showed good-high specificity (66.7%–100%) and positive predictive value (67.9%–100%), and low-good sensitivity (14.8%–83.3%) and moderate-good negative predictive value (53.5%–76.6%). Discriminant power as measured by the area under the curve indicated acceptable-good values (0.397 to 0.894). Conclusion: Our findings support that the Spanish version of the Oxford Cognitive Screen is a reliable and valid tool for screening cognitive impairments in subacute stroke patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicStroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryFrench-language works237,207