Comparing the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) to a real-life version: Convergence, feasibility, and acceptability.

Abstract

We aimed to assess the convergence, feasibility, and acceptability of the Oxford Digital Multiple Errands Test (OxMET) and the in-person Multiple Errands Test-Home version (MET-Home). Participants completed OxMET, MET-Home, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and questionnaires on activities of daily living, depression, technology usage, mobility, and disability. Forty-eight stroke survivors (mean age 69.61, 41.67% female, and average 16.5 months post-stroke) and 50 controls (mean age 71.46, 56.00% female) took part. No performance differences were found for healthy and stroke participants for MET-Home, and only found below p = .05 for OxMET but not below the corrected p = .006. Convergent validity was found between MET-Home and OxMET metrics (most r ≥ .30, p < .006). MET-Home accuracy was related to age (B = -.04, p = .03), sex (B = -.98, p = .03), disability (B = -0.63, p = .04), and MoCA (B = .26, p < .001), whereas OxMET accuracy was predicted by MoCA score (B = .40, p < .001). Feedback indicated that the OxMET was easy and fun and more acceptable than the MET-Home. The MET-Home was more stressful and interesting. The MET tasks demonstrated good convergent validity, with the OxMET digital administration providing a more feasible, inclusive, and acceptable assessment, especially to people with mobility restrictions and more severe stroke.