Revision of the Multiple Errands Test–Home (MET-Home) for English Speaking Community Dwelling Adults and Stroke Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We revised 2/14 items on the Multiple Errands Test–Home (MET-Home). We compared the original and the revision and accounted for clinical/demographic covariates of interest. Archival data ( N = 144) from neurologically healthy participants ( n = 44 revised version, n = 34 original) and survivors of stroke (29 revised version, n = 37 original) were analyzed. We calculated internal consistency and assessed external validity via correlations with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Barthel Index, and Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale (NEADL). We provided preliminary reference data ( n = 78). MET-Home versions were not statistically different on key outcome scores ( p > .05). MET-Home was internally consistent (α = .63 original, α = .80 revised, p = .07). Correlations between MET-Home and external measures were moderate (MoCA: r = .56, p < .001; Barthel: r = .46, p < .001; NEADL: r = .35, p < .001). The revised MET-Home is not statistically different to the original and is just as internally consistent, and we have further evidence of the test’s validity. We caution the lack of comprehensive (age and education corrected) normative data.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".