Changes in Self‐Perceived Competence Following a Virtual Workshop on Cognitive Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive assessment is a necessary part of diagnosing Alzheimer's Disease and related disorders, monitoring disease progression, and measuring treatment effectiveness. Geriatricians and other healthcare providers have observed that cognitive tests are often not administered in a standardized manner, compromising their validity. As well, they are often not administered on the appropriate population or in the appropriate setting. The Cognitive Assessment Tools (CAT) workshop is a half-day, interactive, small group program delivered virtually by trained and experienced healthcare providers. The CAT workshop equips participants with knowledge on the appropriate usage, interpretation, and standardized administration and scoring of cognitive assessment tools, including the Standardized Mini-Mental Status Exam (sMMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA®), Trail Making Test (TMT), Clock Drawing Test (CDT), and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). This workshop was previously offered in person, in both small- and large-group formats. The present study aims to evaluate outcomes of this novel workshop delivered in a virtual format. METHOD: Workshop participants completed pre- post-workshop surveys. Participants utilized a scale from 1 (no proficiency) to 7 (mastery) to report their self-perceived competency. RESULT: 53 participants from 9 workshops completed pre- and post- workshop evaluations (57% response rate). Participants' professions included: nursing (56%), social work (9%), occupational therapy (6%), therapeutic recreation (6%), medicine (4%), physiotherapy (4%), personal support worker (4%), and other (11%). Results of paired t-tests indicated a significant difference between before and after scores for all cognitive assessments. Pre-post mean differences for each cognitive test: sMMSE=1.81; MoCA®=1.70; TMT=2.47; CDT=1.75; GDS=2.11, all p <0.001. There was a significant difference in participants' understanding of why cognitive assessments are used (pre-post mean difference = 1.15), and their knowledge of selecting the appropriate tool to use (pre-post mean difference = 2.21), both p <0.001. Ninety-four percent of participants would recommend the workshop to a colleague. CONCLUSION: The CAT workshop is associated with significant increases in healthcare workers' self-reported competency in selecting, administering, scoring and interpreting common cognitive assessment tools. The workshop attracts a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, and is well-received by learners.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".