Validity of the Chinese version of the weekly calendar planning activity (WCPA) on assessing executive function in adults with stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The weekly calendar planning activity (WCPA) is a performance-based assessment of executive function (EF) via a cognitively-based instrumental activity of daily life (C-IADL). This study aimed to examine the validity of the Chinese version of the WCPA in adults with stroke and to explore the characteristics of cognitive strategy use among the population. Fifty-eight hospitalized patients with stroke aged 26-82 years and 53 controls completed the WCPA, two neuropsychological tests and instrumental activity of daily life (IADL) scale. Participants with stroke were subdivided into a stroke cognitive impaired group (Stroke-CI) and a general stroke group (Stroke-NCI) based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Results showed that the WCPA was able to discriminate between Stroke-CI with controls and the Stroke-NCI group with controls. We found significant limitations in stroke patients' ability to use strategies. Concurrent and ecological validities were demonstrated through correlations between the neuropsychological test scores, IADL and the WCPA performance. This study provides initial evidence for the validity of the Chinese version of the WCPA-10 for adults with stroke and suggests the need to use performance-based tests even in patients with normal cognitive screening test results. The WCPA could provide useful information for strategy-based interventions for adults with stroke.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".