Development of novel computerised tools to assess memory and planning problems in people with brain injury

• Main Author: Quinn, Tracey
• Published: University of Glasgow 2014
• Subjects: 616.89; BF Psychology
• Online Access: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.631025

Background: Many studies have found little relationship between performance on traditional neuropsychological tests and measures of everyday functioning in people with brain injury. Computerised assessment measures incorporating more complex and life like scenarios may provide greater accuracy and ecological validity. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of a computerised measure of executive function to assess planning and prospective memory deficits in a sample of people with brain injury when compared to questionnaire and traditional neuropsychological measures. Methods: Twenty-two individuals with acquired brain injury completed a computerised multiple errands test (C-MET), questionnaire measures of everyday difficulties (e.g. Dysexecutive Questionnaire; DEX) and traditional measures of executive functions including the Zoo Map test and The Stockings of Cambridge (SOC). Exploratory analysis compared relationships between performance on planning and prospective memory subcomponents of the C-MET with the other measures of executive function included in this study. Further analysis compared performance of the brain injury group with data from a sample of 46 healthy controls collected as part of a normative study. Results: C-MET was positively correlated with both the Zoo Map and Stocking of Cambridge tests. Compared with a sample of healthy controls, the brain injury group performed significantly worse on C-MET planning and PM measures and the Zoo Map test. Performance on C-MET Planning and PM and self-rated questionnaire measures were significantly correlated, but contrary to hypotheses, better performance on C-MET was associated with increased reports of difficulty in daily life. Conclusions: Results of this study offer support for the construct validity of C-MET as a measure of executive functioning. However the C-MET’s ability to distinguish between PM and Planning constructs and to predict difficulties that individuals with brain injury experience in everyday life was not supported.