Usability and validity of a virtual reality cognitive assessment tool for pediatric traumatic brain injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Deficits in executive functions are prevalent among children with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Assessing cognitive impairment is critical for evaluating and monitoring recovery. The present article reports a pilot study to evaluate the preliminary usability and validity of a virtual reality cognitive assessment tool (VR-CAT) specifically designed for children with TBI. RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: A total of 54 children, 24 with TBI and 30 with orthopedic injury, participated in a cross-sectional cohort study at a Level-1 trauma center. The VR-CAT was evaluated in terms of user experience as well as preliminary psychometric properties including test-retest reliability, face validity, concurrent validity with two standard executive function assessment tools, and utility in distinguishing the TBI and orthopedic injury groups. RESULTS: Children in both groups reported high levels of usability (i.e., enjoyment and motivation). The VR-CAT composite and scores on tests of inhibitory control and working memory demonstrated modest test-retest reliability across two independent assessment visits, as well as acceptable face validity, modest concurrent validity, and clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The present study is among the first to evaluate the applicability of an immersive VR-CAT in children with TBI. The findings support high usability, adequate psychometric properties, and satisfactory clinical utility of the VR-CAT, suggesting it is a promising tool for assessing executive functions in this vulnerable population. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".