Front Desk Duty Multitasking Test After Mild Stroke: Preliminary Reliability and Validity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Performance-based multitasking assessments may be more sensitive than cognitive screens to detect executive dysfunction after a mild stroke. Purpose. This cross-sectional study examined inter-rater reliability and preliminary convergent and discriminant validity of the Front Desk Duty Test (FDDT). Method. Adults with mild stroke ( n = 35) and community controls ( n = 33) were administered the FDDT and other measures of executive functions. Findings. Inter-rater reliability of the FDDT subscores were high (ICC 0.971–0.999). There were weak but statistically significant correlations between participants’ scores on some of the executive function tests and some FDDT subscores. Participants with mild stroke and community controls had statistically significant different FDDT scores (performance accuracy p = .006; performance time, p = .033), with rank order FDDT score patterns across community controls, participants with mild stroke who passed the executive function screen, and participants with mild stroke who failed the executive function screen. Implications. Preliminary validation results suggest that the FDDT warrants further study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".