Development of a simplified version of the multiple errands test for use in hospital settings
Abstract
Problems with executive functioning may have catastrophic consequences following brain injury. Valid neuropsychological assessment procedures are required if the nature and extent of these are to be understood. However, some existing measures do not adequately reflect how executive impairments are manifested in the context of everyday functioning. Shallice and Burgess (1991) described one procedure, the Multiple Errands Test (MET), which did attain this goal. While successful, it was designed for people who performed within or above the normal range when tested using existing psychometric measures: however, it is acknowledged that many patients seen in routine clinical practice perform below normal limits. Furthermore, while the procedure was carried out in a public place a range of constraints may prevent this with some patients. In this paper the utility of a simplified MET designed for use within a hospital environment is explored. Twenty neurologically healthy participants and 20 people with acquired brain injury took part. People with acquired brain injury were clearly discriminated from healthy controls through the number of errors made. Furthermore, one category of error proved highly predictive of difficulties attributable to executive dysfunction observed in the context of everyday living. While one other test correlated almost as well with these difficulties, it was argued that MET methodology is more advantageous to clinicians regarding assessment and rehabilitatio…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The widely held assumption that tasks very close to real world situations will be psychometrically unsound has recently been shown not to be the case.
“But a further contributing problem has probably been the widely held assumption that tasks very close to real world situations will be psychometrically unsound. Recently, this has been shown not to be the case (e.g., Burgess et al., 1998; Knight et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 1998).”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Knight et al., 2002
Knight et al. (2002) report inter-rater reliabilities ranging between .81 and 1.00 for the various measures of the Multiple Errands Test, and an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of .77.
“Knight et al. (2002) report inter-rater reliabilities ranging between .81 to 1.00 for the various measures of the MET, and an internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of .77.”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Knight et al. (2002)
Performance on tests with high 'representativeness' can be more predictive of performance on traditional tasks than are the traditional tasks themselves.
“Finally, performance on tests with high 'representativeness' can be more predictive of performance on traditional tasks than are the traditional tasks themselves (Alderman et al., 2003; Burgess et al., 1998; Knight et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 1998).”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Knight et al., 2002
There are now various versions of both the Multiple Errands and the Six Element tests, and they have been used in the investigation of a variety of conditions.
“There are now various versions of both the Multiple Errands (e.g., Knight et al., 2002) and the Six Element tests (e.g., Burgess et al., 1996b; Emslie et al., 2003; Kliegel et al., 2000; Levine et al., 2000; Manly et al., 2002), and they have been used in the investigation of a variety of conditions”
From The case for the development and use of ecologically valid measures of executive function in experimental and clinical neuropsychology (2006) · cites this paper as Knight et al., 2002
Cites
DEFICITS IN STRATEGY APPLICATION FOLLOWING FRONTAL LOBE DAMAGE IN MAN
SHALLICE, T., & BURGESS, P. W. (1991) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/114.2.727 · Cited by 2,017 · see citing works
Self-citationSevere disturbance of higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR
Eslinger, P. J., & Damasio, A. R. (1985) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.35.12.1731 · Cited by 1,426 · see citing works
The ecological validity of tests of executive function
BURGESS, P. W., ALDERMAN, N., EVANS, J., EMSLIE, H., & WILSON, B. A. (1998) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617798466037 · Cited by 932 · see citing works
Self-citationEcological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test
ALDERMAN, N., BURGESS, P. W., KNIGHT, C., & HENMAN, C. (2003) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617703910046 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Self-citationMiller, E. (1984) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1984.tb00626.x · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
BURGESS, P. W., ALDERMAN, N., FORBES, C., COSTELLO, A., M-A.COATES, L., DAWSON, D. R., ANDERSON, N. D., GILBERT, S. J., DUMONTHEIL, I., & CHANNON, S. (2006) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617706060310 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Self-citationEcological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test
ALDERMAN, N., BURGESS, P. W., KNIGHT, C., & HENMAN, C. (2003) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617703910046 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Self-citationBENNETT, P. C., ONG, B., & PONSFORD, J. (2005) · Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · doi:10.1017/s1355617705050423 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
How do assessments of activities of daily living address executive functions: a scoping review
Poncet, F., Swaine, B., Dutil, E., Chevignard, M., & Pradat-Diehl, P. (2017) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2016.1268171 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
- Authors
- Knight, C., Alderman, N., & Burgess, P. W.
- Affiliations
- St Andrew's Healthcare (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- Venue
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-06
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 231-255
- ISSN
- 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0694
- OpenAlex
- W2021269680
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- Multiple Errands Test, executive dysfunction, acquired brain injury, daily functioning, error analysis, neuropsychological assessment, rehabilitation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
