Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-6zfdk Total loading time: 1.06 Render date: 2021-04-18T16:04:23.840Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Ecological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2003

Alderman Nick
Affiliation:
The Kemsley Division, St Andrew's Hospital, Billing Road, Northampton NN1 5DG, UK
Burgess Paul W.
Affiliation:
Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, UCL (University College London), 17 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR, UK
Knight Caroline
Affiliation:
The Kemsley Division, St Andrew's Hospital, Billing Road, Northampton NN1 5DG, UK
Henman Collette
Affiliation:
The Kemsley Division, St Andrew's Hospital, Billing Road, Northampton NN1 5DG, UK
Corresponding

Abstract

Shallice and Burgess (1991) reported the utility of the Multiple Errands Test (MET) in discriminating executive deficits in three frontal lobe patients with preserved high IQ, who were otherwise unimpaired on tests of executive function. The aim of this study was to ascertain the value of a simplified version of the MET (MET–SV) for use with the range of people more routinely encountered in clinical practice. Main findings were as follows: 1) The test discriminated well between neurological patients and controls, and the group effects remained when the difference in current general cognitive functions (WAIS–R FSIQ) was taken into account. 2) The best predictors of performance in the healthy control group (n = 46) were age and the number of times participants asked for help (with more requests associated with poorer performance). 3) In the neurological group, two clear patterns of failure emerged, with performance either characterized by rule breaking or failure to achieve tasks. These two patterns were associated with different dysexecutive symptoms in everyday life. 4) The patients not only made more errors than controls, but also different ones. A scoring method that took this into account markedly increased test sensitivity. 5) Many patients passed traditional tests of executive frontal lobe function but still failed the MET–SV. This pattern was strongly associated with observed dysexecutive symptoms in everyday life. The results demonstrate the clinical utility of the test, and suggest that there are two common and independent sources of failure on multitasking tests in a general neurological population: memory dysfunction, and initiation problems. (JINS, 2003, 9, 31–44.)

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Alderman, N. (1996). Central executive deficit and response to operant conditioning methods. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 6, 161–186.10.1080/713755505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderman, N. (2001). Management of challenging behaviour. In R.Ll. Wood and T. McMillan (Eds.), Neurobehavioural disability and social handicap (pp. 175–207). Hove, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Alderman, N. & Knight, C. (1997). The effectiveness of DRL in the management and treatment of severe behaviour disorders following brain injury. Brain Injury, 11, 79–101.10.1080/026990597123683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderman, N., Fry, R.K., & Youngson, H.A. (1995). Improvement of self-monitoring skills, reduction of behaviour disturbance and the dysexecutive syndrome: Comparison of response cost and a new programme of self-monitoring training. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 5, 193–221.10.1080/09602019508401467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, A.L. (1968). Differential behaviour effects in frontal lobe disease. Neuropsychologia, 6, 53–60.10.1016/0028-3932(68)90038-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazzelli, M., Colombo, N., Della Sala, S., & Spinnler, H. (1994). Spared and impaired cognitive abilities after bilateral frontal damage. Cortex, 30, 27–51.10.1016/S0010-9452(13)80323-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P.W. (1997). Theory and methodology in executive function research. In P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 81–116). Hove: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Burgess, P.W. (2000). Strategy application disorder: the role of the frontal lobe in human multitasking research. Psychological Research, 63, 279–288.10.1007/s004269900006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P.W., Alderman, N., Wilson, B.A., Evans, J.J., & Emslie, H. (1996a). The Dysexecutive Questionnaire. In B.A. Wilson, N. Alderman, P.W. Burgess, H. Emslie, & J.J. Evans (1996). Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Burgess, P.W., Baxter, D., Rose, M.J., & Alderman, N. (1996b). Delusional Paramnesic Misidentification. In P.W. Halligan and J.C. Marshall (Eds.), Method in madness: Case studies in cognitive neuropsychiatry. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, P.W., Alderman, N., Evans, J.J., Emslie, H., & Wilson, B.A. (1998). The ecological validity of tests of executive function. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 547–558.10.1017/S1355617798466037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P.W. & Shallice, T. (1996). Response suppression, initiation and strategy use following frontal lobe lesions. Neuropsychologia, 34, 263–273.10.1016/0028-3932(95)00104-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P.W., Veitch, E.J., Costello, A. de L., & Shallice, T. (2000). The cognitive and neuroanatomical correlates of multitasking. Neuropsychologia, 38, 848–863.10.1016/S0028-3932(99)00134-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P.W., Quayle, A., & Frith, C.D. (2001). Brain regions involved in prospective memory as determined by positron emission tomography. Neuropsychologia, 39, 545–555.10.1016/S0028-3932(00)00149-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, W.H., Zencius, A.H., Weslowski, M.D., & Doubleday, F. (1991). Improving executive function disorders in brain-injured clients. Brain Injury, 5, 241–252.10.3109/02699059109008095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goel, V., Grafman, J., Tajik, J., Gana, S., & Danto, D. (1997). A study of the performance of patients with frontal lobe lesions in a financial planning task. Brain, 120, 1805–1822.10.1093/brain/120.10.1805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D.C. (1997). Statistical methods for psychology (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Kimberg, D.Y. & Farah, M.J. (1993). A unified account of cognitive impairments following frontal lobe damage: The role of working memory in complex, organised behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 411–428.10.1037/0096-3445.122.4.411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, N. (1997). Mild head injury: neuropathology, sequelae, measurement and recovery. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 161–184.10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01405.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosowska, D. (1976). Relation between ability to program actions and location of brain damage. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 7, 245–255.Google Scholar
Knight, C. (1999). The development of a hospital version of the multiple errands test to assess executive functioning following severe acquired brain injury. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. UK: The University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Knight, C., Alderman, N., & Burgess, P.W. (2002). Development of a Simplified Version of the Multiple Errands Test for Use in Hospital Settings. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 12, 231–255.10.1080/09602010244000039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, B., Robertson, I., Clare, L., Carter, G., Hong, J., Wilson, B.A., Duncan, J., & Stuss, D.T. (2000). Rehabilitation of executive functioning: An experimental-clinical validation of goal management training. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 299–312.10.1017/S1355617700633052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, B., Stuss, D.T., Milberg, W.P., Alexander, M.P., Schwartz, M., & Macdonald, R. (1998). The effects of focal and diffuse brain damage on strategy application: Evidence from focal lesions, traumatic brain injury, and normal ageing. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 247–264.10.1017/S1355617798002471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manly, T., Hawkins, K., Evans, J., & Robertson, I.H. (2002). Rehabilitation of executive function: Facilitation of effective goal management on complex tasks using periodic auditory alerts. Neuropsychologia, 40, 271–281.10.1016/S0028-3932(01)00094-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, H.E. (1991). The National Adult Reading Test (2nd ed.). Windsor, Berkshire: NFER Nelson.Google Scholar
Nelson, H.E. (1976). A modified card sorting test sensitive to frontal lobe defects. Cortex, 12, 313–324.10.1016/S0010-9452(76)80035-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M.I. & Rothbart, M.K. (1998). Attention, self-regulation and consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 353, 1915–1927.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.H. (1996). Goal Management Training: A Clinical Manual. Cambridge: PsyConsult.Google Scholar
Robertson, I.H., Ward, T., Ridgeway, V., & Nimmo-Smith, I. (1994). Test of Everyday Attention. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Rolls, E.T. (2000). Memory systems in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 599–630.10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shallice, T. & Evans, M.E. (1978). The involvement of the frontal lobes in cognitive estimation. Cortex, 14, 294–303.10.1016/S0010-9452(78)80055-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shallice, T. & Burgess, P.W. (1991). Deficits in strategy application following frontal lobe damage in man. Brain, 114, 727–741.10.1093/brain/114.2.727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuss, D.T., Gow, C.A., & Hetherington, C.R. (1992). “No longer Gage”: Frontal lobe dysfunction and emotional changes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 349–359.10.1037/0022-006X.60.3.349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. Texas, San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Cockburn, J., & Baddeley, A. (1985). The Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test. Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Cockburn, J., & Halligan, P.W. (1989). The Behavioural Inattention Test. Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Alderman, N., Burgess, P.W., Emslie, H., & Evans, J.J. (1996). Behavioural Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. Bury St. Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.A., Evans, J.J., Alderman, N., Burgess, P.W., & Emslie, H. (1997). Behavioural assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. P. Rabbitt (Ed.), Methodology of frontal lobe and executive function (pp. 239–250). Hove, UK: Psychology Press Ltd.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 507 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ecological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Ecological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Ecological validity of a simplified version of the multiple errands shopping test
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *