Comparing the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) to a real-life version: Convergence, feasibility, and acceptability.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1080/09602011.2024.2344326
Sam S Webb, Nele Demeyere
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牛津数字多重任务测试(OxMET)与现实生活版本的比较:收敛性、可行性和可接受性。
我们的目的是评估牛津数字多重任务测试(OxMET)和个人多重任务测试-家庭版(MET-Home)的趋同性、可行性和可接受性。参与者完成了 OxMET、MET-Home、蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)以及有关日常生活活动、抑郁、技术使用、行动能力和残疾的问卷调查。48 名中风幸存者(平均年龄 69.61 岁,女性占 41.67%,平均中风后 16.5 个月)和 50 名对照组(平均年龄 71.46 岁,女性占 56.00%)参加了此次活动。在 MET-Home 中,健康参与者和中风参与者的表现没有差异;在 OxMET 中,只有低于 p = 0.05 的差异,但没有低于校正后的 p = 0.006 的差异。在 MET-Home 和 OxMET 指标(最 r ≥ .30,p p = .03)、性别(B = -.98,p = .03)、残疾(B = -0.63,p = .04)和 MoCA(B = .26,p B = .40,p B = .05)之间发现了收敛有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Experiences of caregivers of patients with traumatic brain injury during hospitalization in western China: A qualitative study. Experiences of loss and grief in adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): A systematic review and meta synthesis of qualitative studies. Post-stroke fatigue severity is associated with executive dysfunction in chronic stroke. Introducing a new social cognition online therapy: SoCoBo. Effect of stimulation-driven attention in virtual reality balloon search training of patients with left unilateral spatial neglect after stroke: A randomized crossover study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1