功能導向執行功能評估工具(11/27)

已發展之功能導向執行功能評估工具

Instrument	Index	Item
Executive Function Performance Test (EFPT)	1. Total score (0-100): executive functions1 2. EF component score2   (1) Initiation (0-20)   (2) Organization (0-20)   (3) Sequencing (0-20)   (4) Judgment (0-20)   (5) Completion (0-20)	4 IADL tasks2: simple cooling*, telephone use, medication management, and bill payment
Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS)-不完全是功能導向工具	Total score (0-24): executive functions3	1. Six test: 0-4 for each test4   (1) Rule shift cards**   (2) Action program**   (3) Key search   (4) Temporal Judgment   (5) Zoo map   (6) Modified six elements 2. Two questions: self rating and proxy  rating of Dysexecutive questionnaire
Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX)	Total score (0-80): executive functions5, a higher score reflects greated deficits in executive functions	Two versions (self rating and proxy  rating), 20 items (score 0-4 for each item)6 ： 1. abstract thinking problems 2. impulsivity 3. confabulation 4. planning problems 5. euphoria 6. temporal sequencing deficits 7. lack of insight and social awareness 8. apathy and lack of drive 9. disinhibition 10. variable motivation 11. shallowing of affective responses 12. aggression 13. lack of concern 14. perseveration 15. restlessness-hyperkinesis 16. inability to inhibit responses 17. knowing-doing dissociation 18. distractibility 19. poor decision-making ability 20. no concern for social rules
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function-Adult version (BRIEF-A) (screening tool)	1. Total score (Global executive composite, GEC)7 2. Behavioral regulation index (BRI)- 4 scales, i.c., inhibit, shift, emotional control, and self-monitor7 3. Metacognitive index (MI): 5 scales. i.c., initiate, working memory, plan/organize, task monitor, and organization of materials7	Two versions (self rating and proxy  rating), 75 items, 9 scales7: 1. inhibit 2. self-monitor 3. plan/organize 4. shift 5. initiate 6. task monitor 7. emotional control 8. working memory 9. organization of materials
Multiple Errands Test	1. inefficiencies8 (0-9)9 2. rule breaks8 (0-9)9 3. interpretation failure8 4. task failure8 (0-12)9 5. total errors8 (0-30)9 (尚無明確的index，是否total errors可算是index of executive functions，仍不確定)	Do a task in the shopping mall; 4 sets of simple tasks. (community-based, hospital-based versions, and virtual MET) Procedures 1. purchase 6 items 2. locate and record 4 items of information 3. meet the assessor at a designated point (20 minutes) 4. tell the assessor when he/she had finished
Profile of the Executive Control System (PRO-EX)	找不到相關資料	1. observational assessment (1) naturalistic setting: multi-step tasks at home, e.g., balancing checkbook (2) simulated setting: route-finding task in hospital Observational assessment consists of 7 scales: (a) goal selection; (b) planning/sequencing; (c) initiation; (d) execution; (e) timesense; (f) awareness of deficits; and (g) self-monitoring 2. interview: ask caregiver scale-specific questions
Executive Function Route Finding Task (EFRT)	A final score is calculated as a mean of the six parameters: testing executive functions10	Ask the patient to start at a designated point and to locate an office on campus (not familiar to patients). The EFRT followed a number of potential routes involving at least 5 choice points and one change in floor level. Score on the parameters: (1) task understanding; (2) information seeking; (3) retaining directions; (4) error detection; (5) error correction; and (6) on-task behavior. (score 1-4 for each parameter)
Brock Adaptive Functioning Questionnaire (BAFQ)	Index of awareness: difference between self rating and proxy rating11 (是否total errors可算是index of executive functions，仍不確定)	68 questions, divided into12 subscales12: (1) planning; (2) initiation; (3) flexibility; (4) excess caution; (5) attention; (6) memory; (7) arousal level; (8) emotionality; (9) impulsivity; (10) aggressiveness; (11) social monitoring; and (12) empathy Assessing 5 domains11: (1) planning; (2) initiation; (3) attention/memory; (4) arousal/inhibition; and (5) social monitoring Score11, 12: hardly ever (0), rarely (1), sometimes (2), often (3), almost always (4) Self rating and proxy rating, two versions
Cognitive Performance Test	Cognitive-functional profiles: 5.5- executive function intact 5.0- beginning deficits in working memory/executive function 4.5- significant deficits in working memory/executive function 4.0- rely on procedural memory/limited self awareness of disability 3.5- objects stimulate actions/guided familiar tasks	Test 6 ADL tasks: dress, shop, toast, phone, wash, and travel; CPT update: add a subtask, medbox. Total score (7-39) from the 7 tasks and then divided by 7 to determine functional level and mode; score for each task: Medbox (1-6), shop (1-6), phone (1-6), toast (1-5), wash (1-5), dress (1-5), and travel (1-6) Administration of the CPT is based on occupational therapy principles of task analysis and adaptation. The test involves the sequential elimination or inclusion of sensory cues as difficulty with performance is observed. For example, in administering the PHONE task, if difficulty is observed with locating a phone number (use of symbolic cues), the phone book is removed and the number is given. If difficulty initiating dialing follows (use of visual cues), the number is removed and non-specific dialing is demonstrated (inclusion of manual cues) for imitation. The therapist must be able to determine whether or not the difficulties are due to information processing deficits or other factors such as low education, cultural bias, or physical impairment. CPT requires working memory to orchestrate complex cognitive resources (i.e., attention, perception, language, memory) to achieve stated and implied task goals while inhibiting distracter props. The test imposes multiple sub-goal and contextual task requirements that reveal patterns of functional cognition.
Naturalistic Action Test	Total score (0-18): test attention, working memory, goal formulation and execution, object recognition, or related cognitive functions. (not really test a certain cognitive function) Higher score states better performance.	1.Making toast and coffee 2. Wrapping pa resent 3. Preparing lunchbox and schoolbag

EF: Executive functions

*需二手操作

**非功能導向

1.         Wolf TJ, Stift S, Connor LT, et al. Feasibility of using the EFPT to dectect executive function deficits at the acute stage of stroke. Work 2010;36:405-412.

2.         Baum CM,Morrison T. Test Protocol Booklet- Executive  Function Performance Test. St. Louis, MO: Program in Occupational Therapy, School of Medicine, Washington University, 2007.

3.         Armentano CGC, Porto CS, Brucki SMD, et al. Study on the Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS) performance in healthy individuals, Mild Cognitive Impair,emt and Alzheimer's disease. Dementia & Neuropsychologia 2009;3:101-107.

4.        Wilson AB, Alderman N, Burgess PW, et al. Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndome (BADS). Journal of Occupational Psychology, Employment and Disability 2003;5.

5.         Simblett SK,Bateman A. Dimensions of the Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX) examined using Rasch analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 2011;21:1-25.

6.         Burgess PW, Alderman N, Evans J, et al. The ecological validity of tests of executive function. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 1998;4:547-558.

7.         Rabin LA, Roth RM, Isquith PK, et al. Self- and informant reports of executive function on the BRIEF-A in MCI and older adults with cognitive compliants. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006;31:721-732.

8.         Alderman N, Burgess PW, Knight C, et al. Ecological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2003;9:31-44.

9.         Maeir A, Krauss S, Katz N. Ecological validity of the Multiple Errands Test (MET) on discharge from neurorehabilitation hospital. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 2011;31:S38-S46.

10.       Kizony R, Demayo-Dayan T, Sinoff G, et al. Validation of the Executive Function Route-finding Task (EFRT) in people with mild cognitive impairment. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health 2011;31:S47-S52.

11.       Sohlberg MM,Matter CA. Cognitive Rehabilitation. New York: The Guilford Press, 2001.

12.       Chaytor N, Schmitter-Edgecombe M, Burr R. Improving the ecological validity of executive functioning assessment. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006;21:217-227.