Psychometric properties and clinical usability of the cognition in daily life scale in patients with acquired brain injury in clinical care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveEvaluate the internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity and clinical usability of the Cognition in Daily Life scale for patients with acquired brain injury.DesignValidation study.ParticipantsA total of 75 patients with acquired brain injury (mostly male [ n = 47, 68%]; mean age 67 years) were recruited from inpatient care facilities. Sixty participants (81%) had sustained a stroke.Main measures Outcome measure: Cognition in Daily Life scale. Reference measures: Utrecht Scale for Rehabilitation-Cognition subscale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Barthel Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fatigue Severity Scale.ResultsAfter removing redundant items, all subscales of the Cognition in Daily Life scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.847), and inter-rater reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.615). Convergent validity was confirmed through moderately strong correlations between most subscales of the Cognition in Daily Life Scale and other measures of cognition. Cognition in Daily Life subscales generally did not correlate with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Fatigue Severity Scale, indicating divergent validity. Moderate correlations with the Barthel Index suggested related, but distinct constructs. Clinicians found the Cognition in Daily Life scale easy to administer and relevant for practice, though time-consuming. They suggested layout improvements for greater usability.ConclusionThe Cognition in Daily Life scale is adequately valid, reliable and clinically usable for assessing cognition in daily life in patients with acquired brain injury in a clinical setting. Future research needs to evaluate the scale's sensitivity to change and its performance in other settings and populations.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".