Assessing cognition, mental health and daily functioning in deafblindness: An empirical multicentre study for ICF Core Set development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the development of the Core Sets for deafblindness, using the World Health Organization’s (WHOs) International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), the last preparatory study consists of a multisite cross-sectional clinical assessment. Its purpose is to use standardized tests of functioning that have been identified during a systematic literature review, and that have been most frequently used with deafblind individuals. These measures need to be available at no cost, standardized and validated, and not interfere with protected professional acts. Here, we explore the administration of the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), the Lawton-Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for this purpose. Participants were 29 deafblind adults (14 men, 15 women), ranging in age from 20 to 74 ( M = 47.29, SD = 16.31), with a wide range of severity and diagnostic criteria, and from 15 countries distributed across the six WHO regions. They were invited to a structured online clinical assessment based on the ICF Check List of assessment categories, in addition to the administration of the three identified standardized measures. Participants demonstrated varying levels of independence in daily tasks, with the highest independence in managing laundry and medications and greater dependency in financial management and transportation. Nearly half (48%) showed signs of clinical depression. MMSE completion rates were low ( n = 6), with significant non-responses in visually demanding items; among those who completed it, 67% scored within the normal range. A positive correlation between cognitive status and functional independence was found. These findings underscore the heterogeneity of deafblind individuals. None of these most frequently used measures were designed to be administered to individuals living with combined vision and hearing difficulties, underscoring the importance of tailored assessment tools and interventions to support this population.
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 | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".