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

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. 48 stroke survivors (mean age 69.61, 41.67% female, and avg. 16.5 months posts-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= -0.04, 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.