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

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of sample characteristics for all participants (healthy controls n = 50, stroke n = 48).

	Healthy controls		Stroke survivors
Characteristic	N	Value	N	Value
Age (M (SD))	50 (100%)	71.46 (11.03)	48 (100%)	69.61 (14.14)
Education (M (SD))	50 (100%)	15.68 (3.32)	48 (100%)	13.94 (3.75)
Handedness	50 (100%)	R = 88%; L = 8%; A = 4%;	48 (100%)	R = 83.33%; L = 14.58%; A = 2.08%;
Sex	50 (100%)	F = 56%; M = 44%;	48 (100%)	M = 58.33%; F = 41.67%;
Ethnicity	50 (100%)	White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British = 94%; White: Any other white background = 4%; Asian or Asian British: Indian = 2%;	48 (100%)	White: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British = 87.5%; White: Any other white background = 8.33%; Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African: Any other Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African background = 2.08%; Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group = 2.08%;
Days Since Stroke (M (SD, range))	–	–	48 (100%)	502.29 (547.47, 122–3,283)
Stroke type	–	–	48 (100%)	Ischaemic = 79.17%; Intracerebral haemorrhage = 12.50%; TIA = 6.25%; Subarachnoid haemorrhage = 2.08%;
Stroke side	–	–	48 (100%)	R = 47.92%; L = 33.33%; B = 12.50%; Undetermined = 6.25%;
Stroke Severity (Median (IQR))	–	–	42 (89%)	6 (4-9.5)
Mobility	50 (100%)	Walks completely independently with no difficulty = 96%; Walks independently but with difficulty (may use aid, e.g., frame/stick) =  4%	46 (98%)	Walks independently but with difficulty (may use aid, e.g., frame/stick) =  44.68%; Walks completely independently with no difficulty = 40.43%; Walks with assistance of 1 person = 10.64%; No sitting balance = 2.13%; Wheelchair + sitting balance = 2.13%
Modified Rankin Scale (M (SD))	50 (100%)	0 = 96%; 1 = 2%; 2 = 2%;	48 (100%)	0 = 8.33%; 1 = 18.75%; 2 = 27.08%; 3 = 33.33%; 4 = 10.42%; 5 = 2.08%;

Note: Percentage of complete data is presented in the “N” column in parentheses. R = right side, L = left side, B = bilateral, A = ambidextrous, M = male, and F = female.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and ANCOVA comparisons between sample groups on MET-Home and OxMET as well as additional covariates.

Measure	Metrics	Group	M	SD	Df1	Df2	F	p	ef
MET-Home	Accuracy	Control	10.10	2.27	1	88	2.648	.107	.029
		Stroke	9.05	3.04
	Frequency of Passes	Control	2.74	2.13	1	88	.296	.587	.003
		Stroke	2.90	2.08
	Frequency of Rule Breaks	Control	8.10	4.32	1	88	.889	.348	.01
		Stroke	9.07	5.02
	Inefficiencies	Control	.26	.60	1	88	.545	.462	.006
		Stroke	.32	.82
	Number of Rules Broken	Control	2.30	.71	1	88	.34	.561	.004
		Stroke	2.39	.97
	Omissions	Control	1.40	1.69	1	88	3.149	.079	.035
		Stroke	2.37	2.47
	Partial Completions	Control	2.48	1.82	1	88	0.109	.743	.001
		Stroke	2.54	1.57
	Rooms Visited	Control	7.08	3.44	1	82	2.682	.105	.032
		Stroke	5.68	3.01
OxMET	Accuracy	Control	8.14	2.25	1	92	4.827	.031*	.05
		Stroke	6.42	3.66
	Commissions	Control	.66	.96	1	92	0.464	.497	.005
		Stroke	.91	1.38
	Frequency of Rule Breaks	Control	1.72	2.12	1	92	4.716	.032*	.049
		Stroke	3.33	3.61
	Omissions	Control	1.02	1.45	1	92	7.332	.008*	.074
		Stroke	2.42	2.62
	Partial Omissions	Control	.52	.79	1	92	1.965	.164	.021
		Stroke	.84	1.21
	Perseveration	Control	.04	.20	1	92	1.063	.305	.011
		Stroke	.13	.50
	Time	Control	174.09	53.87	1	92	5.635	.02*	.058
		Stroke	209.68	79.27
	Total Error	Control	2.22	2.71	1	92	4.559	.035*	.047
		Stroke	4.18	4.49
Non-MET	Barthel	Control	19.78	.62	1	95	9.701	.002**	.093
		Stroke	17.83	3.79
	GDS15	Control	1.31	1.73	1	92	21.861	<.001**	.192
		Stroke	4.48	3.99
	MoCA	Control	26.24	2.38	1	93	17.594	<.001**	.159
		Stroke	22.46	4.89
	NEADL Total	Control	63.32	3.53	1	95	48.658	<.001**	.339
		Stroke	44.23	17.60
	Tech Screen Total Used	Control	11.79	2.57	1	77	8.509	.005**	.1
		Stroke	9.32	3.81
	mRS	Control	.06	.31	1	95	141.522	<.001**	.598
		Stroke	2.25	1.19

Note: ANCOVA included comparing group on score metric whilst accounting for variance explained by education. ** refers to significance on or below .006 (Bonferroni corrected per OxMET and MET-Home measure), and * refers to significance below .05. ef refers to generalized effect size estimate.

Table 3. Spearman’s Rho correlations between OxMET and MET-Home performance metrics inclusive of healthy controls and stroke survivors.

	OxMET metrics
MET-Home Metrics	Time	Accuracy	Omissions	Partial Omissions	Commissions	Perseveration	Frequency of Rule Breaks	Total Errors
Planning time	.41**	−.10	.12	−.02	.10	−.01	.11	.06
Time	.25*	.23*	−.25*	−.30**	−.20	.05	−.25*	−.28*
Accuracy	−.19	.37**	−.37**	−.26*	−.26*	−.01	−.36**	−.36**
Partial Completions	.07	−.07	.10	.06	.05	−.08	.08	.08
Omissions	.12	−.38**	.35**	.24*	.24*	−.02	.35**	.35**
Number of Rule Breaks	.03	.08	−.11	−.24*	−.13	−.11	−.13	−.15
Frequency of Rule Breaks	.18	−.07	.04	−.15	−.01	.06	.04	.00
Frequency of Passes	.24*	−.12	.11	.09	.10	−.03	.09	.09
Inefficiencies	.00	.02	.01	−.12	−.03	−.11	−.01	−.07
Rooms Visited	−.19	.25*	−.26*	−.29*	−.17	−.22*	−.26*	−.29*

Note: $\ast \ast$ p < .00625, $\ast$ p < .05.

Table 4. Summary of attempt and completion of the OxMET and MET-Home.

	MET-Home
OxMET	Not attempted	Attempted and not completed	Attempted and completed
Not attempted	1 (1.02%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.02%)
Attempted and not completed	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Attempted and completed	4 (4.08%)	3 (3.06%)	89 (90.82%)

Note: Three participants completed the OxMET on a 6.5 inch smartphone and not a computer tablet due to equipment failure. They were included having completed the task on the smartphone, though the OxMET is recommended not to be used on a screen smaller than 7.5 inches.

Figure 1. Visualization of statistically significant predictive associations across all participants (solid lines) and only stroke survivors (dashed lines) for task accuracy. Thicker lines are associations which survived corrections for multiple comparison (p < .006). Figure available under CC-BY 4.0 attribution license (https://osf.io/xw3s8).

Read the detailed description of this figure

Diagram containing 8 circles in a vertical array with the following words individually in each circle; MoCA, sex, age, stroke severity, mobility, disability (mRS), tech-screen used, and education. On the right side are two boxes, with the words OxMET accuracy and MET-Home Accuracy inside. There are several arrows from each of the circles, which are predictors in a linear regression model, so each of the boxes, which are the outcomes in the regression models. There are faint lines from the MoCA, Sex, Age, Stroke Severity, and Disability circles to the MET-Home accuracy showing how they are significant predictors of MET-Home accuracy but above a multiple comparison corrected alpha cut off. There is one faint arrow from MoCA to OxMET accuracy for the stroke sample. In bold are two lines from MoCA to OxMET accuracy and to MET-Home accuracy, as MoCA was the only significant predictor of either tasks accuracy after correction for multiple comparisons.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PZWGF

 Google Scholar

.