54 The Relationship between Error-Monitoring and Measures of Real-World Awareness and Everyday Function

Abstract

Objective:

Aging older adults and individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) experience changes in ability to self-monitor errors. Difficulties with accurate self-monitoring of errors can negatively impact everyday functioning. Without proper error recognition, individuals will continue to make mistakes and not implement compensatory strategies to prevent future errors. A modified Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART; Robertson et al., 1997) has previously been used to assess self-monitoring by the number of errors individuals were able to recognize. The current study sought to examine the relationship of this laboratory-based error-awareness task with everyday functional abilities as assessed by informants and with real-world error-monitoring. We hypothesized that self-monitoring would be significantly related to real-world error-monitoring and everyday functional abilities.

Participants and Methods:

135 community-dwelling participants (110 healthy older adults (HOA) and 25 individuals with MCI) were included from a larger parent study (mean age = 67.73, SD = 8.89). A modified SART was used to measure error-monitoring and create a self-monitoring variable by dividing accurately recognized errors by the total number of errors. Participants also completed simple and complex everyday tasks of daily living (e.g., making lemonade, cooking oatmeal, cleaning, filling medication pillbox) in a university campus apartment. Examiners coded both number of errors committed and self-corrections that were made during task completion. To examine real world error awareness, total self-correct errors were divided by the total number of errors. Knowledgeable informants (KI) completed the Everyday Cognition (ECog) scale, where they rated the participant on domains of memory, language, spatial abilities, planning, organization, and divided attention, to capture changes in everyday function. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationship between SART self-monitoring and real-world error-monitoring, and changes in everyday functions as rated by their informants.

Results:

As self-monitoring scores on the SART increased, so too did real-world error awareness scores, r(133) = .18, p = .04. Higher self-monitoring scores on the SART were also significantly positively associated with functional performance abilities on the Ecog total (r(96) = -.24, p = .02). Further, higher self-monitoring on the SART was related to better functional performance within the Ecog domains of everyday memory (r(96) = -.23, p = .02), everyday language (r(96) = -.24, p = .02), everyday spatial abilities (r(96) = -.23, p = .02), and everyday planning (r(96) = -.21, p = .04). SART self-monitoring was not significantly related to everyday organization or divided attention domains.

Conclusions:

The findings revealed that better error-monitoring performance on a laboratory-based task was related to better error-monitoring when completing real-world activities, and less overall impairment in everyday function as reported by informants. Results support the ecological validity of the SART error-monitoring score and suggest that error-monitoring performance on the modified SART may have important clinical implications in predicting real-world error-monitoring and everyday function. Future research should consider how SART error-monitoring may predict everyday functioning, over and above other clinical measures.