4.2 Article

Naturalistic Assessment of Everyday Functioning in Individuals With Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Day-Out Task

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 631-641

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0029352

关键词

ecological assessment; instrumental activities of daily living; multitasking; memory; planning

资金

  1. Life Science Discovery Fund of Washington State
  2. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering [R01 EB009675]
  3. National Science Foundation [DGE-0900781]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The day-out task (DOT), a naturalistic task that requires multitasking in a real-world setting, was used to examine everyday functioning in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Method: Thirty-eight participants with MCI and 38 cognitively healthy older adult controls prioritized, organized, initiated, and completed a number of subtasks in a campus apartment to prepare for a day out (e. g., determine and gather change for bus, bring a magazine). Participants also completed tests assessing cognitive constructs important in multitasking (i.e., retrospective memory, prospective memory, planning). Results: As compared with controls, the MCI group required more time to complete the DOT and demonstrated poorer task accuracy, performing more subtasks incompletely and inaccurately. Despite poorer DOT task accuracy, the MCI and control groups approached completion of the DOT in a similar manner. For the MCI group, retrospective memory was a unique predictor of the number of subtasks left incomplete and inaccurate, while prospective memory was a unique predictor of DOT sequencing. The DOT measures, but not the cognitive tests, were predictive of knowledgeable informant report of everyday functioning. Conclusions: These findings suggest that difficulty remembering and keeping track of multiple goals and subgoals may contribute to the poorer performance of individuals with MCI in complex everyday situations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据