Further investigations into performance variance on the Multiple Errands Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Multiple Errands Test (MET) is a complex, performance-based assessment that is useful for characterising the impact of impairments of executive function on everyday activities. However, performance variance amongst those without neurological pathology, and the impact of non-cognitive factors on this, requires further investigation. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analytic study, conducted with a convenience sample of 40 neurologically intact community-dwelling Australian adults. Participants completed a hospital or shopping centre version of the MET, where their Performance Efficiency, Task Completions and Rule Breaks were recorded. Non-cognitive factors of interest were demographic (age, sex and education), psychological (measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and self-ratings of test anxiety) and assessment-related (assessment site, self-reported site familiarity and observed strategy use). MET performance was analysed using descriptive statistics. A series of standard multiple and binary logistic regression analyses examined the relationships between MET performance and non-cognitive factors. RESULTS: Most participants (n = 35, 87.5%) completed at least 10 of the 12 prescribed tasks and broke an average of four rules (SD = 2.36). They achieved an average performance efficiency rating of 0.75/1 (SD = 0.15), suggesting variability in the extent to which participants made non-essential location stops and/or failed to complete tasks whilst at an essential location. The assessment site and participant site familiarity had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) impact on Performance Efficiency and Task Completion scores, and psychological factors had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship with Rule Breaks. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the impact of factors other than cognition should be considered when interpreting MET performance. The assessment site and participant site familiarity may contribute to significant variability in Performance Efficiency scores. Clinicians should also be aware of the potential impact of these assessment-related factors on Task Completions and psychological distress on Rule Breaks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".