MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411053078 · doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.050948

Performance-Based Assessments of Functional Cognition in Adults, Part 1—Assessment Characteristics: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4411053078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yejin Lee, Samantha B. Randolph, Moon Young Kim, Erin R. Foster, Jessica Kersey, Carolyn Baum, Lisa Tabor Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Occupational Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycINFOCognitionCINAHLMEDLINETask (project management)Activities of daily livingOccupational therapyScopusSystematic reviewPsychologyConstruct (python library)Montreal Cognitive AssessmentApplied psychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceCognitive impairmentPsychological interventionPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Although the construct of functional cognition is central to the practice of occupational therapy, there is no consensus regarding the core characteristics of functional cognitive assessments. Thus, it is necessary to review existing performance-based assessments of functional cognition and describe their characteristics to understand how functional cognition is measured and has been conceptualized. OBJECTIVE: To identify performance-based assessments of functional cognition in adults and describe their characteristics. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from inception to February 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA COLLECTION: We searched for performance-based assessments that involve direct observation of the performance of everyday activities to assess integrated cognitive skills, referred to as functional cognition, in adults. We used a standardized spreadsheet to extract the characteristics of the included assessments (e.g., construct originally targeted, activities and scoring metrics used). FINDINGS: We identified 25 assessments; most were originally designed for measuring executive functioning. Common instrumental activities of daily living included were cooking and meal preparation, managing finances, using the telephone, and managing medication. Performance time (time taken to complete the task) was frequently used as a scoring metric. Most assessments incorporated observable indicators of functional cognitive abilities (e.g., the task is accurately performed, the task is completed, the task is performed in an efficient and safe way). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this review can guide occupational therapy professionals in better understanding functional cognition by illustrating how it is conceptualized in existing assessments. Plain-Language Summary: The objective of this review was to identify and examine the characteristics of performance-based assessments that involve direct observation of the performance of everyday activities to assess integrated cognitive skills, referred to as functional cognition, in adults. We identified 25 assessments. Actual or simulated daily activities used as part of the assessments included cooking and meal preparation, managing finances, using the telephone, and managing medications. These activities are all known to be key to independent community living. Performance time and number and types of errors were frequently used as scoring metrics. Most assessments incorporated indicators of functional cognitive abilities, such as the number of completed or failed tasks or whether the tasks were efficiently performed (i.e., the use of effective strategies). These performance-based assessments provide a standardized way to measure the dynamic integration of cognitive abilities during the performance of everyday activities (i.e., functional cognition).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.227
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Occupational TherapySame topicOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchFrench-language works237,207