{"title":"Comparing the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) to a real-life version: Convergence, feasibility, and acceptability.","authors":"Sam S Webb, Nele Demeyere","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2024.2344326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We aimed to assess the convergence, feasibility, and acceptability of the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) and the in-person Multiple Errands Test-Home version (MET-Home). Participants completed OxMET, MET-Home, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and questionnaires on activities of daily living, depression, technology usage, mobility, and disability. Forty-eight stroke survivors (mean age 69.61, 41.67% female, and average 16.5 months post-stroke) and 50 controls (mean age 71.46, 56.00% female) took part. No performance differences were found for healthy and stroke participants for MET-Home, and only found below <i>p</i> = .05 for OxMET but not below the corrected <i>p</i> = .006. Convergent validity was found between MET-Home and OxMET metrics (most <i>r</i> ≥ .30, <i>p </i>< .006). MET-Home accuracy was related to age (B = -.04, <i>p </i>= .03), sex (<i>B</i> = -.98, <i>p</i> = .03), disability (<i>B</i> = -0.63, <i>p </i>= .04), and MoCA (<i>B</i> = .26, <i>p </i>< .001), whereas OxMET accuracy was predicted by MoCA score (<i>B</i> = .40, <i>p </i>< .001). Feedback indicated that the OxMET was easy and fun and more acceptable than the MET-Home. The MET-Home was more stressful and interesting. The MET tasks demonstrated good convergent validity, with the OxMET digital administration providing a more feasible, inclusive, and acceptable assessment, especially to people with mobility restrictions and more severe stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","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/10.1080/09602011.2024.2344326","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We aimed to assess the convergence, feasibility, and acceptability of the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) and the in-person Multiple Errands Test-Home version (MET-Home). Participants completed OxMET, MET-Home, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and questionnaires on activities of daily living, depression, technology usage, mobility, and disability. Forty-eight stroke survivors (mean age 69.61, 41.67% female, and average 16.5 months post-stroke) and 50 controls (mean age 71.46, 56.00% female) took part. No performance differences were found for healthy and stroke participants for MET-Home, and only found below p = .05 for OxMET but not below the corrected p = .006. Convergent validity was found between MET-Home and OxMET metrics (most r ≥ .30, p < .006). MET-Home accuracy was related to age (B = -.04, p = .03), sex (B = -.98, p = .03), disability (B = -0.63, p = .04), and MoCA (B = .26, p < .001), whereas OxMET accuracy was predicted by MoCA score (B = .40, p < .001). Feedback indicated that the OxMET was easy and fun and more acceptable than the MET-Home. The MET-Home was more stressful and interesting. The MET tasks demonstrated good convergent validity, with the OxMET digital administration providing a more feasible, inclusive, and acceptable assessment, especially to people with mobility restrictions and more severe stroke.
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.