Further investigations into performance variance on the Multiple Errands Test

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe Multiple Errands Test (MET) is a complex, performance‐based assessment that is useful for characterising the impact of impairments of executive function on everyday activities. However, performance variance amongst those without neurological pathology, and the impact of non‐cognitive factors on this, requires further investigation.MethodsThis was a cross‐sectional analytic study, conducted with a convenience sample of 40 neurologically intact community‐dwelling Australian adults. Participants completed a hospital or shopping centre version of the MET, where their Performance Efficiency, Task Completions and Rule Breaks were recorded. Non‐cognitive factors of interest were demographic (age, sex and education), psychological (measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and self‐ratings of test anxiety) and assessment‐related (assessment site, self‐reported site familiarity and observed strategy use). MET performance was analysed using descriptive statistics. A series of standard multiple and binary logistic regression analyses examined the relationships between MET performance and non‐cognitive factors.ResultsMost participants (n = 35, 87.5%) completed at least 10 of the 12 prescribed tasks and broke an average of four rules (SD = 2.36). They achieved an average performance efficiency rating of 0.75/1 (SD = 0.15), suggesting variability in the extent to which participants made non‐essential location stops and/or failed to complete tasks whilst at an essential location. The assessment site and participant site familiarity had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) impact on Performance Efficiency and Task Completion scores, and psychological factors had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationship with Rule Breaks.ConclusionFindings suggest that the impact of factors other than cognition should be considered when interpreting MET performance. The assessment site and participant site familiarity may contribute to significant variability in Performance Efficiency scores. Clinicians should also be aware of the potential impact of these assessment‐related factors on Task Completions and psychological distress on Rule Breaks.