周历活动规划中文版在大学生执行功能评测中的信度

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2020.03.020

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的探讨周历活动规划中文版(WCPA-C)在评估大学生执行功能时的重测信度和评估者间信度。方法 2019年8月至11月,招募18~30岁在校大学生55例参与测评。一位评估者对全部受试者采用WCPA-C评估,2周后重测;两位评估者同时使用WCPA-C对其中31例进行评估。计算重测和评估者间组内相关系数(ICC)。结果脱落两例。除错误数外,其余指标重测ICC为0.45~0.89,第二次结果优于首次;评估者间ICC为0.84~1.00。结论 WCPA-C用于我国健康大学生人群,具有良好的评估者间信度,间隔2周重测可能存在学习效应。

关键词: 执行功能, 周历活动规划, 信度

Abstract:

Objective To investigate the intrarater and interrater reliability of Chinese version of Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA-C) as evaluating the executive function in college students. Methods From August to November, 2019, 55 college students aged 18 to 30 participated in this study. One rater evaluated all the subjects with WCPA-C and retested two weeks later. Two raters evaluated 31 of the subjects with WCPA-C. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for intrarater and interrater. Results Two cases dropped out. The ICCs of the indexes were 0.45 to 0.89 for intrarater excepted Total Errors, and they were better from the second assessment than the first time. The ICC for interrater was 0.84 to 1.00. Conclusion WCPA-C is well interrater reliable for the healthy college students in China, however, there may be learning effect as interval of two weeks.

Key words: executive function, Weekly Calendar Planning Activity, reliability

中图分类号:

R493

怀宝玉,王翠,黄真,高雅. 周历活动规划中文版在大学生执行功能评测中的信度[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(3): 363-367.

HUAI Bao-yu,WANG Cui,HUANG Zhen,GAO Ya. Reliability of Chinese Version of Weekly Calendar Planning Activity for an Executive Function Assessment in College Students[J]. 《Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice》, 2020, 26(3): 363-367.

图/表 3

图1

表1

表2

参考文献 28

[1]	World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [M]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
[2]	Marschark M, Walton D, Crowe K, et al. Relations of social maturity, executive function, and self efficacy among deaf university students[J]. Deafness Educ Int, 2018, 20(2):100-120. doi: 10.1080/14643154.2018.1474330
[3]	Wolf T, Baum C. Impact of mild cognitive impairments on participation: importance of early identification of cognitive loss [M]// Katz N. Cognition, Occupation, and Participation Across The Life Span: Neuroscience, Neurorehabilitation, and Models of Intervention in Occupational Therapy. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press, 2011: 41-55.
[4]	Diamond A. Executive functions[J]. Annu Rev Psychol, 2013, 64:135-168. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 pmid: 23020641
[5]	王金芳, 王万铭, 陈红燕, 等. 脑室周围白质损伤患者执行功能损害与日常生活活动能力的相关性[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2018, 24(10):1182-1186.
[6]	Clark C A C, Sheffield T D, Wiebe S A, et al. Longitudinal associations between executive control and developing mathematical competence in preschool boys and girls[J]. Child Dev, 2013, 84(2):662-677. doi: 10.1111/cdev.2013.84.issue-2
[7]	McClelland M M, Cameron C E, Connor C M, et al. Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers' literacy, vocabulary, and math skills[J]. Dev Psychol, 2007, 43(4):947-959. pmid: 17605527
[8]	Alderman N, Burgesp P W, Knight C, et al. Ecological validity of a simplified version of the Multiple Errands Shopping Test[J]. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 2003, 9(1):31-44. doi: 10.1017/S1355617703910046
[9]	Burgess P W, Alderman N, Forbes C, et al. The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology[J]. J Int Neuropsychol Soc, 2006, 12(2):194-209. doi: 10.1017/S1355617706060310
[10]	Gioia G A, Isquith P K. Ecological assessment of tests of executive function in traumatic brain injury[J]. Dev Neuropsychol, 2004, 25:135-158. doi: 10.1207/s15326942dn2501&2_8
[11]	Zanetti O, Geroldi C, Frisoni G B, et al. Contrasting results between caregiver’s report and direct assessment of activities of daily living in patients affected by mild and very mild dementia: The contribution of the caregiver’s personal characteristics[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1999, 47(2):196-202. pmid: 9988291
[12]	Luis C A, Loewenstein D A, Acevedo A, et al. Mild cognitive impairment: directions for future research[J]. Neurology, 2003, 61(4):438-444. pmid: 12939414
[13]	Rubenstein L Z, Schairer C, Wieland G D, et al. Systematic biases in functional status assessment of elderly adults: effects of different data sources[J]. J Gerontol, 1984, 39(6):686-691. doi: 10.1093/geronj/39.6.686
[14]	Wadley V G, Harrell L E, Marson D C. Self- and informant report of financial abilities in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: Reliable and valid?[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2003, 51:1621-1626. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2003.51514.x
[15]	朱江, 樊洁, 甘俊, 等. 执行功能失常问卷中文版在强迫症患者中的应用[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2018, 26(6):1127-1130.
[16]	Toglia J. Weekly Calendar Planning Activity. A Performance Test of Executive Function [M]. Betheseda, MD: AOTA Press, 2015: 1-8.
[17]	Holmqvist K L, Holmefur M, Arvidsson P. Test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Weekly Calendar Planning Activity: a performance-based test of executive functioning[J]. Disabil Rehabil, 2019. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2019.1568590.[Epub ahead of print]
[18]	Weiner N W, Toglia J, Berg C. Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA): a performance-based assessment of executive function piloted with at-risk adolescents[J]. Am J Occup Ther, 2012, 66(6):699-708. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2012.004754
[19]	Lahav O, Ben-Simon A, Inbar-Weiss N, et al. Weekly Calendar Planning Activity for university students: comparison of individuals with and without ADHD by gender[J]. J Atten Disord, 2018, 22(4):368-378. doi: 10.1177/1087054714564621 pmid: 25555627
[20]	Zlotnik S, Toglia J. Measuring adolescent self-awareness and accuracy using a performance-based assessment and parental report[J]. Front Public Health, 2018, 6:15. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00015 pmid: 29456993
[21]	Kaizerman-Dinerman A, Roe D, Josman N. An efficacy study of a metacognitive group intervention for people with schizophrenia[J]. Psychiatry Res, 2018, 270:1150-1156. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.10.037
[22]	Goverover Y, Toglia J, DeLuca J. The weekly calendar planning activity in multiple sclerosis: a top-down assessment of executive functions[J]. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 2019. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2019.1584573.[Epub ahead of print]
[23]	Zlotnik S, Schiff A, Ravid S, et al. A new approach for assessing executive functions in everyday life, among adolescents with genetic generalised epilepsies[J]. Rev Neurol, 2018. DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1468272.[Epub ahead of print]
[24]	Jarrett M A. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and executive functioning in emerging adults[J]. Psychol Assess, 2016, 28(2):245-250. doi: 10.1037/pas0000190
[25]	Snyder H R, Kaiser R H, Whisman M A, et al. Opposite effects of anxiety and depressive symptoms on executive function: the case of selecting among competing options[J]. Cogn Emot, 2014, 28(5):893-902. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2013.859568
[26]	Alexandra H B, Mary J C, Jessica E, et al. Comparison of two approaches to prevention of mental health problems in college students: enhancing coping and executive function skills[J]. J Am Coll Health, 2017, 65(5):313-322. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2017.1312411 pmid: 28358274
[27]	Toglia J, Lahav O, Ben Ari E, et al. Adult age and cultural differences in performance on the Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA)[J]. Am J Occup Ther, 2017, 71:7105270010.
[28]	Hayashia Y, Foremanb A M, Friedelb J E, et al. Executive function and dangerous driving behaviors in young drivers[J]. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav, 2018, 52:51-61. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.007

指标	初测		重测		ICC	95%CI	P值
指标	M (Q_L, Q_H)	四分位数间距	M (Q_L, Q_H)	四分位数间距	ICC	95%CI	P值
安排填写数	16(15,17)	1	16(15,17)	1	0.89	0.80~0.93	0.317
准确度	15(11,17)	2	16(9,17)	1	0.54	0.21~0.74	0.006
遵守规则数	5(3,5)	1	5(3,5)	0	0.45	0.06~0.68	0.000
策略使用数	6(1,11)	3	7(2,11)	2	0.60	0.30~0.77	0.107
总时间(s)	976(300,2288)	464	898(368,1750)	303	0.79	0.63~0.88	0.010
计划时间(s)	42(7,1691)	120	39(9,1402)	80	0.76	0.59~0.86	0.202
错误数	2(0,5)	2	1(0,6)	2	0.38	-0.68~0.64	0.011
效率	77(20,219)	38	70(31,164)	25	0.55	0.21~0.74	< 0.001
加权准确度	13(7,17)	4	15(5,17)	2	0.51	0.16~0.72	0.012
遗漏数	1(0,2)	1	0(0,2)	1	0.80	0.65~0.88	0.071

指标	评估者甲	评估者乙	ICC	95%CI
安排填写数	16(15,17)	16(15,17)	1.00	< 1.00~1.00
准确度	15(12,17)	15(12,17)	0.95	0.89~0.98
遵守规则数	5(3,5)	5(3,5)	0.84	0.67~0.92
策略使用数	6(3,10)	7(1,10)	0.89	0.77~0.95
总时间(s)	933(300,2288)	990(511,2288)	0.98	0.95~0.99
计划时间(s)	49(7,1691)	41(7,1695)	0.99	0.98~0.99
错误数	2(0,5)	2(1,5)	0.95	0.88~0.97
效率	74(20,153)	79(36,153)	0.96	0.92~0.98
加权准确度	13(8,17)	13(8,17)	0.95	0.89~0.98
遗漏数	1(0,2)	1(0,2)	1.00	1.00~1.00