Bridging the gap between performance-based assessment and self-reported everyday functioning: An ecological momentary assessment approach. Issue 4 (18th May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schmitter-Edgecombe, Maureen; Sumida, Catherine; Cook, Diane J.
• Is Part Of: Clinical neuropsychologist. Volume 34:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 678
• Page End: 699
• Publication Date: 2020-05-18
• Subjects: Activities of daily living -- cognitive control -- ecological momentary assessment -- executive function -- intra-individual variability; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Neuropsychology -- Periodicals; Mental Disorders -- Periodicals; 612.805
• DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2020.1733097
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1385-4046

Abstract

Abstract: Objective : In the real-world environment, multiple and interacting state-dependent factors (e.g., fatigue, distractions) can cause cognitive failures and negatively impact everyday activities. This study used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and a n-back task to examine the relationship between fluctuating levels of cognition measured in the real-world environment and self-report and performance-based measures of functional status. Method : Thirty-five community-dwelling older adults ( M age = 71.80) completed a brief battery of objective and self-report measures of cognitive and functional status. After completing 100, 45-second trials to reach stable performance on a n-back task, EMA data collection began. Four times daily for one week, participants received prompts on a tablet to complete a n-back task and a brief survey. From the EMA n-back trials, measures of EMA average performance and intra-individual variability (IIV) across performances were created. Results : For the EMA n-back, the correlation between IIV and EMA average was weak and non-significant. IIV associated with self-report measures, and EMA average with the objective, performance-based functional status composite. Hierarchical regressions further revealed that IIV was a significant predictor of self-reported functional status and cognitive failures over and above EMA average performance and global cognitive status. In contrast, for the objective, functional status composite, IIV did not explain additional variance. Conclusions : The findings suggest that IIV and self-report measures of functional status and cognitive failures may capture a real-world cognitive capacity that fluctuates over time and with context; one that may not easily be captured by objective, performance-based measures designed to assess optimal function.