{"title":"Predictive validity of the Oxford digital multiple errands test (OxMET) for functional outcomes after stroke.","authors":"Sam S Webb, Nele Demeyere","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2023.2247152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) is a brief computer-tablet based cognitive screen, intended as an ecologically valid assessment of executive dysfunction. We examined aspects of predictive validity in relation to functional outcomes. Participants (≤ 2 months post-stroke) were recruited from an English-speaking stroke rehabilitation in-patient setting. Participants completed OxMET. The Barthel Index, Therapy Outcome Measure (TOMS), and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were collected from medical notes. Participants were followed up after 6-months and completed the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. 117 participants were recruited (<i>M </i>= 26.18 days post-stroke (<i>SD </i>= 25.16), mean 74.44yrs (<i>SD</i> = 12.88), median NIHSS 8.32 (<i>IQR </i>= 5-11)). Sixty-six completed a follow-up (<i>M </i>= 73.94yrs (<i>SD</i> = 12.68), median NIHSS 8 (<i>IQR </i>= 4-11)). Significant associations were found between TOMS and mRS. At 6-month follow up, we found a moderate predictive relationship between the OxMET accuracy and NEADL (R<sup>2 </sup>= .29, <i>p </i>< .001), and we did not find this prediction with MoCA taken at 6-months. The subacute OxMET associated with measures of functionality and disability in a rehabilitation context, and in activities of daily living. The OxMET is an assessment of executive function with good predictive validity on clinically relevant functional outcome measures that may be more predictive than other cognitive tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"938-954"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2023.2247152","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) is a brief computer-tablet based cognitive screen, intended as an ecologically valid assessment of executive dysfunction. We examined aspects of predictive validity in relation to functional outcomes. Participants (≤ 2 months post-stroke) were recruited from an English-speaking stroke rehabilitation in-patient setting. Participants completed OxMET. The Barthel Index, Therapy Outcome Measure (TOMS), and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) were collected from medical notes. Participants were followed up after 6-months and completed the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale. 117 participants were recruited (M = 26.18 days post-stroke (SD = 25.16), mean 74.44yrs (SD = 12.88), median NIHSS 8.32 (IQR = 5-11)). Sixty-six completed a follow-up (M = 73.94yrs (SD = 12.68), median NIHSS 8 (IQR = 4-11)). Significant associations were found between TOMS and mRS. At 6-month follow up, we found a moderate predictive relationship between the OxMET accuracy and NEADL (R2 = .29, p < .001), and we did not find this prediction with MoCA taken at 6-months. The subacute OxMET associated with measures of functionality and disability in a rehabilitation context, and in activities of daily living. The OxMET is an assessment of executive function with good predictive validity on clinically relevant functional outcome measures that may be more predictive than other cognitive tests.
期刊介绍:
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.