AOTA 2019 conference

2 poster, 2019 April 4-7, spring holidays.
CAAT & COMET

2019-2021, 科技部計畫：
(1) working memory
(2) IADL, leisure, & social participation
11/12, the 1st version of the research plan.

perhaps, working memory is easier for the 3-year plan.
and the other 3 scales, for the 1-year research plan


iSAT 沒投上。以下原因：

Reviewer 1: The authors have an interesting test, but there are many issues with the study design. The authors should bring on a trained expert in measurement on their team to be able to guide them on the accurate reporting and design of studies related to psychometric properties. Some areas of improvement are provided here however there are many ways to strengthen this study:
1. Test retest - One month is too long for stability of scores. Authors should provide evidence that nothing changed in the one month or shorten the time for test-retest. 
2. All scores for only L that yielded good results is reported when clearly the authors had ample space in this abstract to provide additional information about the results in all categories as regards to the word limit. Psychometrics of all scores should have been reported
3. Concurrent/ Convergent - Concurrent and convergent results need better reporting. Is the 2 & 7 test a gold standard to be used for concurrent validity? This need more information. The results do not indicate if the convergent validity was done with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. I will assume based on the limited information provided here that it was done with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment - but this is not good science. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment is not a measure of attention and convergence with it would not be a relevant metric.

真不知道當初在想甚麼，怎麼會用2 & 7當作 concurrent validity? 又不是黃金工具；用convergent validity可能還比較合適。
至於MoCA與iSAT, 雖然當初是認為都是認知這個範疇，所以用convergent validity來說明；看來要再重新複習及釐清convergent validity的定義。


Convergent validity is “the degree to which concepts that should be related theoretically are interrelated in reality.”
工具的特質與理論的相關程度。
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

RSFST demographics

106年的研究計畫，居然沒有寫到人口學資料。
補一下。太扯~

109院內計畫

1.ACLS-6, 李淑君
2.CDVT-2, 吳宜靜
3.re-motivation, 李劼

discuss CDVT-2: 8/6 afternoon

internet addition

one-way ANOVA, spss

比較三組以上平均數

FERT

Facial emotion recognition deficits: The new face of schizophrenia

FACIAL EMOTION RECOGNITION DEFICITS IN SCHIZOPHRENIA

Facial emotion recognition deficits have been consistently demonstrated in schizophrenia and are found to be specific for negative emotions of fear, anger, and disgust.[8,9,10]

8. Mandal MK, Pandey R, Prasad AB. Facial expressions of emotions and schizophrenia: A review. Schizophr Bull. 1998;24:399–412. [PubMed]

9. Van’t Wout M, van Dijke A, Aleman A, Kessels RP, Pijpers W, Kahn RS. Fearful faces in schizophrenia: The relationship between patient characteristics and facial affect recognition. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2007;195:758–64. [PubMed]

10. Kohler CG, Bilker W, Hagendoorn M, Gur RE, Gur RC. Emotion recognition deficit in schizophrenia: Association with symptomatology and cognition. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;48:127–36. [PubMed]

線上問卷

my survey: 無法做圖形題目、可做兩兩對比題。
survey cake: 可做圖形題目、無法做兩兩對比題。

花錢找工程師做。

可以想一下，依APP的概念：(1)對象/功能、(2)全自動或半自動、(3)低耗電或高耗電。

Process of translation and adaptation of instruments

這居然有中文網頁，不過當然是簡體版。

量表中文化之翻譯與反翻譯translation & back-translation的過程。

• Forward translation：強調概念，非直譯。以一般民眾可接受的語言；千萬別請教專家，別用術語與俗話。
• Expert panel Back-translation：(1)專家小組。找一個召集，組成小組(須包含原翻譯的人員)，針對有疑義之處，進行澄清。(2)由一位母語為英語的翻譯人士，進行反翻譯，一樣是概念性翻譯與文化對等，非直譯。
• Pre-testing and cognitive interviewing：預測。找尋目標族群，進行問卷理解。
• Final version

我的天啊，一定要麼麻煩嗎?

我在想，若自病人自評，是有需要這麼麻煩；但，若是工作人員評分，不能直接就用原文版嗎。像是PSP。如果，我們不是用PSP中文版，而是用PSP原文版，這樣發表文章到底算甚麼。


Back-translation of social cognition measures 
To develop a Japanese version of the SCSQ, professionals specializing in mental health translated the original SCSQ from English to Japanese. Afterward, a person isolated from the first group of translators performed a back-translation. Modifications of some terms were made to fit local culture. We performed the same procedure for the Hinting Task and the AIHQ. All back-translations were supervised and approved by one of the persons who developed the tests.

Kanie, Ayako, et al. "New instrument for measuring multiple domains of social cognition: Construct validity of the Social Cognition Screening Questionnaire (Japanese version)." Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences 68.9 (2014): 701-711.

EQS for CFA

沒想到EQS是有時效性的。
難道，我需要再寄mail出去；可以重新開啟嗎?

AMOS CFA of rSFST-27

就已經是一步驟一步驟跟著做，居然二階還是做不出來。是著魔了嗎?


1. 打開AMOS的外掛套件 Plugins/Pattern Matrix Model Builder。
(講清楚有多少潛在購面，以及有多少題目在這個潛在購面。)
2. 使用excel製作架構圖。ex: rSFST有6個subdomains，有各自的題目。通常一個潛在購面約3-5題。
3. 11:35輸入data file//Select data file(s)/於file name中，選擇已建置的SPSS檔案。
4. 讀到檔案後，再開啟Plugins/Pattern Matrix Model Builder，excel已建置的架構圖，貼入Pattern Matrix Input。就可以Create Diagram。
5. 13:00 放大，希望subdomains放大，所以使用【change the shape】，選取所有subdomains，再一起用放大。
6. subdomains裡面的字要放大：選擇Object Property/Test/Font size。
7. 15:45 參數1的設定(標準化)。將參數1去除。CFA主要做信效度的檢驗；SEM主要是探討因果關係。(再澄清一下，參考值得設定)
8. 在analysis中的output,除了原本的Mini???, 還需勾選第2個 Stand?? estimates。主要是用來判斷要多少loading才要留著。
9. no valid license for Amos was found (11, 0).  這是因為這個外掛有問題。這是可以解決的：關掉後再開就好了。

10. 22:00 結果有兩個重點：在estimates/scales/variances: (1) 所有的e(誤差項)，其estimates要為正值。因為這是變異數，是一種平方，當然要是正值。(2) 所有的e，其SE要越小越好。SE是標準誤，所以我們需要逐一檢查，千萬不要有SE很大的情形。 最後，誤差一定要達顯著；凡測量一定有誤差，所以要顯著，才正常。
11. standar?? Regression Weight: 其estimates可看每個item的loading。
12. model fit: CMIN/DF, GFI, AGFI, CFI
13. analysis/ output/ 下面有Modification indices, 修模用。26:00 隔壁的數值，因為卡方值約5000多，所以先設100。(這個不太了解，為什麼要這樣設定?)  存檔後，再計算一次，然後看報表。
14. 原來設定100，標準太高；改設50後，從新計算；終於在MI處，見到有可以刪除的建議了。28:26 發現e60與e61有相關，那麼兩種做法(1)拉相關, (2)刪除其中一個。(目前，第2種常用)。
15. 太多題；決定先把loading<0.5先全數刪除。直接在圖形上面刪除，連誤差e也要一起刪除。刪完後，另存新檔(M1) 34:00，這樣就有每次刪除的紀錄。最後是M22。

Ruff 27, WFOT 2018

海報的文字內容，暫時先貼這樣。

等下，我再把table 1 及table 2寄給你。完成後，先把海報寄給我看一下。

BA plots，再提醒我。
再加入BA plots的內文描述。
BA plots等寫文章時，再寫進去。異質性甚麼的及r>0.3。

Title: The test-retest reliability and practice effects of the Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test in patients with schizophrenia

Introduction: Sustained attention is referred to individuals to maintain concentration at a cognitive activity with repeat stimuli; selective attention is the ability to focus something particular while neglecting distractors in activity context. Attention deficits are a crucial feature of cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. All impaired sustained or selective attention will affect the daily performance of schizophrenia. The Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test (2 & 7 Test) assesses sustained and selective attention with automatic detection (AD) and controlled search (CS) trials. However, test-retest reliability and practice effects of the 2 & 7 Test are unknown in patients with schizophrenia. The test-retest reliability of the 2 & 7 Test is helpful to determine whether repeated measures are reproducible.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the test-retest reliability and practice effects between two successive assessments of the 2 & 7 Test in patients with schizophrenia.

Method: Inpatients with schizophrenia at chronic wards of a psychiatric hospital were recruited in the test-retest design study with a 2-week interval. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used for test-retest reliability. Paired t test was used for significance of practice effects; Cohen’s d for the magnitude of practice effects.

Results: Sixty-two inpatients with schizophrenia participated in our study and most of the 62 participants were male (59.7%). The duration of onset was about 24 on average (mean ± SD = 23.8 ± 10.2). Table 1 shows further characteristics of the participants. For sustained attention, the test-retest correlations of the total speed and accuracy scores were 0.95 and 0.84, respectively. For selective attention, the test-retest correlations of the speed/accuracy of AD and CS were 0.91/0.82 and 0.93/0.86, respectively. The paired t test of most mean scores were significant, except for AD accuracy; Cohen’s d ranged from 0.10 to 0.36 for all scores.

Conclusion: In general, the 2 & 7 Test showed good test-retest reliability and acceptable random measurement error. Small practice effects occurred across two successive tests. Practice effects must be taken into consideration for interpretation an individual change of a 2-week interval in clinical settings. 

Keywords: Attention; Practice effects; Schizophrenia; Cognition

Introduction of Ruff 2 & 7 selective test

Introduction

Attention deficit is one of common cognitive impairments in patients with schizophrenia. (Bortolato, F Carvalho, & S McIntyre, 2014). Attention is a specific mental function including focused attention, sustain attention, selective attention, alertness, and divided attention (AOTA, 2014; Golisz & Toglia, 2003; Yu et al., 2015). Among them, selective attention is the ability to focus something particular while neglecting distractors in activity context (Ettinger et al., 2015); and sustain attention is refer to individuals to maintain concentration at cognitive activity with repeat stimuli (Sarter, Givens, & Bruno, 2001). All impaired selective attention or sustain attention will affect daily performance of schizophrenia (Shi K. Liu et al., 2002). Thus, attention measurements used in schizophrenia evaluation accurately is important in screening referral, planning intervention, monitoring progress, and so on.

The Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test (2 & 7 test) (Ronald M Ruff & Allen, 1996) was developed to assess selective attention and sustain attention in adolescents and adults (16-70yrs). The 2 & 7 test, a kind of paper-and-pencil cancellation test, consists a series of 20 sets: 10 Automatic Detection (AD) trials and 10 Controlled Search (CS) trials. Each trial take individual 15 seconds and the total administration time is 5 minutes per test. After finishing the 2 & 7 test, the administrator has to count the raw sore, including the hits and errors of 20 trials, and then tabulates these scores to speed and accuracy score. In clinical practice, some literature indicate that the 2 & 7 test is ideal tool to be used in quick bedside evaluation because of its convenience and low cost (R. Ruff, 2017).

The 2 & 7 test has good psychometric properties in normal population (Messinis et al., 2007; R. Ruff, 2017; Ronald M Ruff & Allen, 1996). In addition, there are also different clinical populations evaluated by the 2 & 7 test in some research literatures (Lan, Tsai, & Tan, 2011; R. Ruff, 2017; Ronald M. Ruff, 1994; Ronald M. Ruff, Niemann, Allen, Farrow, & Wylie, 1992). However, the test-retest reliability and practice effects of the 2 & 7 test are still unknown in patients with schizophrenia so that the assessment results will affect clinical intervention. Thus, we aim to assess the test-rest reliability and practice effect of the 2 & 7 test in schizophrenia.

AOTA. (2014). Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (3rd Edition). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Supplement_1), S1-S48. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.682006 doi:10.5014/ajot.2014.682006

Bortolato, B., F Carvalho, A., & S McIntyre, R. (2014). Cognitive dysfunction in major depressive disorder: a state-of-the-art clinical review. CNS & Neurological Disorders-Drug Targets (Formerly Current Drug Targets-CNS & Neurological Disorders), 13, 1804-1818.

Ettinger, U., Mohr, C., Gooding, D. C., Cohen, A. S., Rapp, A., Haenschel, C., & Park, S. (2015). Cognition and Brain Function in Schizotypy: A Selective Review. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 41, S417-S426. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbu190

Golisz, K. M., & Toglia, J. P. (2003). Section II: Perception and Cognition. In E. B. Crepeau, E. S. Cohn, & B. A. B. Schell (Eds.), Willard & Spackman's Occupation Therapy (tenth ed., pp. 402-403). Philadephia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

Lan, C.-M., Tsai, P.-C., & Tan, M.-Y. (2011). Validation of the Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test for Outpatients with Schizophrenia. [羅夫2與7選擇性注意力測驗於精神分裂症門診病患的效度研究]. Journal of Occupational Therapy Association R.O.C., 29, 28-45. doi:10.6594/jtota.2011.29(1).02

Messinis, L., Kosmidis, M. H., Tsakona, I., Georgiou, V., Aretouli, E., & Papathanasopoulos, P. (2007). Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test: Normative data, discriminant validity and test–retest reliability in Greek adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22, 773-785. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.06.005

Ruff, R. (2017). Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test. In J. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology (pp. 1-3). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Ruff, R. M. (1994). What Role Does Depression Play on the Performance of the Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test? Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 63-66. doi:10.2466/pms.1994.78.1.63

Ruff, R. M., & Allen, C. C. (1996). Ruff 2 & 7 selective attention test: professional manual: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Ruff, R. M., Niemann, H., Allen, C. C., Farrow, C. E., & Wylie, T. (1992). The Ruff 2 and 7 Selective Attention Test: A Neuropsychological Application. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 1311-1319. doi:10.2466/pms.1992.75.3f.1311

Sarter, M., Givens, B., & Bruno, J. P. (2001). The cognitive neuroscience of sustained attention: where top-down meets bottom-up. Brain Research Reviews, 35, 146-160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0173(01)00044-3

Shi K. Liu, Chia-Hui Chiu, Ching-Jui Chang, Tzung-Jeng Hwang, Hai-Gwo Hwu, & Wei J. Chen. (2002). Deficits in Sustained Attention in Schizophrenia and Affective Disorders: Stable Versus State-Dependent Markers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 975-982. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.159.6.975

Yu, W. H., Chiu, E. C., Lin, G. H., Lin, H. Y., Hsueh, I. P., & Hsieh, C.-L. (2015). Test-retest Agreement, Random Measurement Error and Practice Effect of the Attention Scale for Elementary School Children. [Test-retest Agreement, Random Measurement Error and Practice Effect of the Attention Scale for Elementary School Children]. Journal of Occupational Therapy Association R.O.C., 33, 25-44. doi:10.6594/jtota.2015.33(1).02

補CSFS-27數據中missing data的數量

	age	Onset age	Duration of illness
Numbers of missing data	71	111	128