Further development of the Multiple Errands Test: standardized scoring, reliability, and ecological validity for the Baycrest version.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine the summary scores on the Baycrest Multiple Errands Test (BMET) that best discriminate between community dwelling people with traumatic brain injury or stroke and matched controls; (2) to determine interrater reliability; (3) to evaluate further the ecological validity.
DESIGN: Case-control.
SETTING: Large, university-affiliated health care center and participants' homes. PARTICIPANTS: People with acquired brain injury (n=27) and healthy matched controls (n=25).
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) BMET; (2) performance-based measure of instrumental activities of daily living: the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; (3) self-report and significant other report of daily life function, the Dysexecutive Questionnaire, the Sickness Impact Profile, and the Mayo-Portland Adaptability Inventory.
RESULTS: Performance on the BMET was significantly different between people with acquired brain injury and controls (P<.05); good to strong correlations (>.50) were found in more than one third of the correlations between the BMET and measures of IADL and everyday function. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) on BMET summary scores were high (ICC=.71-.88), illustrating very good interrater reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: This study extends the psychometric findings of the Multiple Errands Test, thus further confirming its value for clinical and research purposes. It is a reliable and ecologically valid assessment that provides a standard way of categorizing executive performance errors in a naturalistic environment.