Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41349042›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2026

The Virtual Kitchen Challenge-Version 2: Validation of a Digital Assessment of Everyday Function in Older Adults.

Marina Kaplan, Moira McKniff, Stephanie M Simone, Molly B Tassoni, Katherine Hackett, Sophia Holmqvist, Rachel E Mis, Kimberly Halberstadter, Riya Chaturvedi, Melissa Rosahl and 5 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Marina KaplanDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0891-6584
Moira McKniffDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5780-4769
Stephanie M SimoneDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2595-1781
Molly B TassoniDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6822-3794
Katherine HackettDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3595-1418
Sophia HolmqvistDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7303-3338
Rachel E MisDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6160-9061
Kimberly HalberstadterDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6360-1930
Riya ChaturvediDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3594-5922
Melissa RosahlDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5565-9303
Giuliana VallecorsaDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6762-8513
Mijiail D SerruyaRaphael Center for Neruorestoration, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9534-2892
Deborah A G DrabickDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5645-9158
Takehiko YamaguchiDepartment of Applied Information Engineering, Suwa University of Science, Nagano, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-2707-7380
Tania GiovannettiDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5661-152X

Funding

Assessing Everyday Function in Older Adults with the Virtual KitchenR01AG062503 · NIA · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI GIOVANNETTI, TANIA · 2020 to 2024
$1.8M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG062503
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional methods of functional assessment include subjective self- or informant report, which may be biased by personal characteristics, cognitive abilities, and lack of standardization (eg, influence of idiosyncratic task demands). Traditional performance-based assessments offer some advantages over self- or informant reports but are time-consuming to administer and score.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Virtual Kitchen Challenge-Version 2 (VKC-2), an objective, standardized, and highly efficient alternative to current functional assessments for older adults across the spectrum of cognitive aging, from preclinical to mild dementia.

methodsA total of 236 community-dwelling, diverse older adults completed a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation to classify cognitive status as healthy, mild cognitive impairment, or mild dementia, after adjustment for demographic variables (age, education, sex, and estimated IQ). Participants completed 2 everyday tasks (breakfast and lunch) in a virtual kitchen (VKC-2) using a touchscreen interface to select objects and sequence steps. Automated scoring reflected completion time and performance efficiency (eg, number of screen interactions, percentage of time spent off-screen, interactions with distractor objects). Participants also completed the VKC-2 tasks using real objects (Real Kitchen). All participants and informants for 219 participants completed questionnaires regarding everyday function. A subsample of participants (n=143) performed the VKC-2 again in a second session, 4-6 weeks after the baseline, for retest analyses. Analyses evaluated construct and convergent validity, as well as retest and internal reliability, of VKC-2 automated scores.

resultsA principal component analysis showed that the primary VKC-2 automated scores captured a single dimension and could be combined into a composite score reflecting task efficiency. Construct validity was supported by analyses of covariance results showing that participants with healthy cognition obtained significantly better VKC-2 scores than participants with cognitive impairment (all Ps<.001), even after controlling for demographics and general computer visuomotor dexterity. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlations between VKC-2 scores and performance on the Real Kitchen (r=-0.58 to 0.64, Ps<.001), conventional cognitive test scores (r=-0.50 to -0.22, Ps<.001), and self- and informant report questionnaires evaluating everyday function (r=0.25 to 0.43, Ps<.001). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) indicated moderate to excellent retest reliability (ICC=0.70-0.90) for VKC-2 scores after 4-6 weeks. Reliability improved in analyses including only participants who reported no change in cognitive status between time 1 and time 2 (n=123). Spearman-Brown correlations showed acceptable to good internal consistency between the VKC-2 tasks (breakfast and lunch) for all scores (0.77-0.84), supporting the use of total scores.

conclusionsThe VKC-2 is an efficient, valid, and sensitive measure of everyday function for diverse older adults and holds promise to improve the status quo of functional assessment in aging, particularly when informants are unavailable or unreliable.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingCognitive DysfunctionGeriatric AssessmentNeuropsychological TestsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIndependent LivingMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of Resultsactivities of daily livingAlzheimer diseaseassessmentcognitiondementiadigital assessmenteveryday functionmild cognitive impairmentneuropsychologyvirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID41349042
PMCPMC12824580

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.