Abstract
This study examined reliability and validity of the WCPA, an assessment of EF. Participants were 300 college students. Performance on two levels of the WCPA was compared to other EF measures and between students with and without learning differences. There were small–moderate correlations between tests with Level II and no differences between students with and without learning differences, necessitating a more challenging version of the WCPA.
Primary Author and Speaker: Eddie Chu
Additional Authors and Speakers: Rashelle Nagata, Margaret Goodfellow, Katherine Tao, Ria Mehta, Sharon Cermak
Contributing Authors: Patricia Tobey, Cheryl Vigen
Executive functions (EF) are cognitive skills necessary for performing goal-directed tasks. They are critical to successful engagement in everyday activities. Executive dysfunction can negatively impact a person’s ability to learn in different contexts1,2. The Weekly Calendar Planning Activity (WCPA)1 is a standardized assessment to measure EF in the context of real-world tasks. The purpose of this study is to examine the concurrent and construct validity of Level III of the WCPA-S in college students with and without learning differences, and to examine the relation of this measure to other measures of EF. Further, we will compare results of two Levels of the WCPA.
In Phase I (completed), we used Level II of the WCPA-S and tested 208 college students ages 18 - 30 years including both typical learners and those with learning differences (e.g. ADHD, ASD, Learning disability, Bipolar disorder). Participants were tested on the WCPA-S and three other measures of EF (described below). WCPA-S results indicated no significant differences between students with and without learning differences in accuracy, time, number of strategies used, or the efficiency scores (i.e. time-accuracy trade-off). Thus, Level II was not sufficiently sensitive to discriminate between groups with and without learning differences, perhaps due to a ceiling effect. There was a statistically significant interaction between sex and student status for total accuracy, time, and number of strategies used for the WCPA-S. There were low to moderate correlations between the WCPA-S and other measures of EF.
In Phase II (in process), we will utilize the harder Level III, which involves more complex executive functioning skills, to examine the validity of the WCPA by 1) comparing performance of college students with and without learning differences, and 2) exploring its relationship with three other measures of EF and functional cognition: The Zoo Map Test3, a part of the Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS) that assesses planning ability, and two self-report questionnaires: The Dysexecutive Questionnaire (DEX)3, and the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Adult version (BRIEF-A)4.
Phase II will include 100-120 participants, half with learning differences and half who are typical learners ages 18-30, attending universities in Southern California.
The study uses a non-experimental descriptive correlational and between-group design. As in Phase I, correlational analyses will be performed to measure concurrent validity, examining relationships between the WCPA and the other measures of EF. Construct validity will be assessed by examining whether the WCPA discriminates between students with and without learning differences. A subsample of 30 participants will complete the WCPA a second time two weeks later to examine test-retest reliability.
Participation is the ultimate goal in occupational therapy. Impairments in executive skills and related functional cognition can negatively impact participation. Our professional organization calls for reliable and valid tools for clinical practice and research. This study examines the validity of the WCPA, a tool that can be used to provide information to help understand the challenges being faced by college students through its occupation-focused assessment of an individual’s planning and organizational ability.
Toglia, J. (2015). Weekly Calendar Planning Activity: A performance test of executive function. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press.
Katz, N., & Toglia, J. (2018). Cognition, occupation, and participation across the lifespan: Neuroscience, neurorehabilitation, and models of intervention. Bethesda, MD: AOTA Press.
Rozenblatt, S. (2011). Behavioral Assessment of the Dysexecutive Syndrome. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 377-378). Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-0-387-79948-3_166.pdf
Roth, R. M., Isquith, P. K., & Gioia, G. A. (2005). Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function®–Adult Version (BRIEF®-A). Lutz, FL: PAR.