On the ecological validity of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome measure in mild traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing concern in neuropsychology is whether neuropsychological test measures (NTMs) can predict functional outcome (i.e. ecological validity). The relationship between neuropsychological tests and return to work (RTW) outcomes following mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) found that the majority of tests were either weakly or completely unrelated. As such, many have opined that clinical neuropsychology should adopt new tests that relate test performance to real-world functioning, such as the Behavioural Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS). Further investigation into the BADS sensitivity to employment status in a mTBI sample is needed. PRESENT STUDY: We aimed to investigate if the BADS is better at differentiating between employment status compared to traditional pen-and-paper neuropsychological test measures in a sample of patients in the post-acute period of recovery after mTBI. RESULTS: Following correction of family-wise error, neither the BADS nor traditional tests could differentiate employment status in patients with mTBI who were in the post-acute period of recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of significant findings in the majority of the tests highlights the importance of other facets of a complete neuropsychological assessment. Furthermore, researchers may benefit from investigating other forms of assessment that could prove to be more ecologically valid.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".