The validity, reliability and clinical utility of a performance-based executive function assessment in people with mild to moderate dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Performance-based evaluation of executive function by using real-world daily living activities is an important area of study. This approach has been used extensively in evaluating patients after stroke or traumatic brain injury and patients with schizophrenia. Most important is the fact that until now, there has been no validated performance-based evaluation of executive function in people with dementia.Methods: To address that knowledge gap, this study recruited 80 patients diagnosed with dementia and 80 demographically matched healthy controls. The participants were administered tests for evaluating their performance-based executive function (Chinese Multiple Errands Test), their instrumental activities of daily living (Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, Chinese Version), and their functional disability (Chinese Version of the Disability Assessment for Dementia), along with a cognitive screening test (Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Hong Kong Version) and a neuropsychological test of executive function (Trail-making Test).Results: The Chinese Multiple Errands Test demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability and high internal consistency. Results revealed that the healthy controls out-performed the dementia patients in the performance-based executive function and cognitive screening, but not in the instrumental activities of daily living tests. Additionally, the performance efficiency scores of the older adults with dementia on the Chinese Multiple Errands Test correlated significantly with their performance results on the neuropsychological test of executive function and on the tests of functional disability and cognitive function.Conclusion: Our results indicated that the Chinese Multiple Errands Test is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing executive function in Chinese older people with dementia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".