Impaired Performance on a Cognitively-Based Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Task, the 10-Item Weekly Calendar Planning Activity, in Individuals With Stroke Undergoing Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Performance-based, functionally relevant, and standardized measures of cognitive-instrumental activities of daily living (C-IADL) can complement neuropsychological tests of cognitive impairment and provide valuable clinical information to inform rehabilitation planning. Existing measures have been validated in the outpatient setting. Here, we sought to evaluate a 10-item, short-form of a C-IADL measure, Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA-10), in inpatients with stroke undergoing acute rehabilitation. The specific goal was to determine if the WCPA-10 could differentiate between stroke patients undergoing acute inpatient rehabilitation and healthy control individuals. We also explored whether the WCPA-10 would identify C-IADL limitations in stroke patients screened as having intact cognition. Seventy-seven stroke inpatients undergoing rehabilitation and 77 healthy control participants completed the WCPA-10, which involves entering a list of simulated, fictional appointments into a weekly schedule while keeping track of and adhering to multiple task rules and ignoring built-in obstacles and distractions. Compared to the control group, stroke patients had significantly worse accuracy, made more errors, used fewer cognitive strategies, followed fewer rules, took more time to complete the task, and were less efficient. 83% of stroke patients were less accurate than predicted by their age, and 64% used less strategies than their age prediction. Among 28 participants who screened as having "normal" cognitive function on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, the majority had deficits on the WCPA-10. Our results provide initial support for use of a brief C-IADL assessment, WCPA-10, for individuals with stroke undergoing inpatient rehabilitation. They indicate that stroke patients have deficits in C-IADL accuracy, efficiency, and strategy use at this stage of stroke recovery. Results highlight the need to use performance based, functional cognitive assessments, even for those who perform well on cognitive screening tools.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".