Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

Children's Kitchen Task Assessment

Last Updated

Purpose

The CKTA assesses executive function in children 8-12 through the child’s performance of making play dough.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym CKTA

Area of Assessment

Executive Functioning

Assessment Type

Performance Measure

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Key Descriptions

  • Create this kit before performing the assessment.
  • It is important for the tools to match the photographs. If unable to match, then take a photograph and replace the one in the kit.

  • Practicing with another professional is encouraged, as the way a cue is delivered can influence the child’s performance.

Equipment Required

  • Access equipment list here: http://www.ot.wustl.edu/about/resources/childrens-kitchen-task-assessment-367.

Time to Administer

20 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jill Smiley, MPH and the Rehabilitation Measures Database Team in August 2014.

Considerations

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Normative Data

Typically Developing Children:

(Rocke et al, 2008; n = 49 typically developing African American children aged 8-12 years; mean age = 10.4 (1.12) years; sex = 69% female; 49% single parent homes) 

  • Mean total score for all participants = 11.84 (8.80) 
  • Mean number of cues for test as a whole = 9.02 (5.89)

Children with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD):

(Berg et al, 2012; n = 44 African American Children aged 8-12 years, 22 with SCD and 22 Controls; sex = 26 females and 18 males; mean age of controls = 10(1.52) years; mean age of children with SCD = 10.23 (1.42) years)

Results of CKTA

 

Control

SCD

p, (d)

Total

12.64 (10.28)

18.86 (18.80)

0.18

Time

17.70 (4.90)

17.40 (3.80)

0.83

Total # Cues

9.41 (6.60)

12.50 (10.70)

0.25

Organization

1.45 (0.67)

2.05 (0.84)

0.01 (0.79)

Initiation

.27 (0.63)

1.50 (2.77)

0.05 (0.61)

Planning

9.14 (6.50)

11.40 (9.57)

0.36

Judgment

0.09 (0.42)

0.14 (0.35)

0.70

Completion

0.00 (0.00)

0.23 (0.52)

0.05 (0.63)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Typically Developing Children:

(Rocke et al, 2008)

  • Excellent interrater reliability (ICC = 0.98)

Internal Consistency

Typically Developing Children:

(Rocke et al, 2008)

  • Poor internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.68)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Typically Developing Children:

(Rocke et al, 2008)

  • Adequate correlation between total CKTA and WISC-IV Digit Span (r = -0.31)
  • Adequate correlation between total CKTA and BRIEF (r = 0.34)
  • Adequate correlation between the organization subscale of CKTA and and the plan and organized subscale of BRIEF (r = 0.38)
  • Adequate correlation between the judgement and safety subscale of CKTA and and the monitor subscale of BRIEF (r = -0.35)
  • Adequate correlation between the planning and sequencing subscale of CKTA and and the D-KEFS Confirmed Correct Card Sorts(r = -0.33)
  • Adequate correlation between the planning and sequencing subscale of CKTA and and the Total Description Score (r = -0.30)

Construct Validity

Typically Developing Children:

(Rocke et al, 2008)

  • There is evidence of discriminant validity because two blind raters are able to make the same assessment

Face Validity

Children with Sickle Cell Disease:

(Berg et al, 2012)

  • Even when controlled by age and for SES distribution, the CKTA results are apparent. It observes the child in action and is not dependent on verbal instruction or recall.

Bibliography

Berg, C., Edwards, D. F., et al. (2012). "Executive function performance on the children's kitchen task assessment with children with sickle cell disease and matched controls." Child Neuropsychol 18(5): 432-448. Find it on PubMed

Rocke, K., Hays, P., et al. (2008). "Development of a performance assessment of executive function: the Children's Kitchen Task Assessment." Am J Occup Ther 62(5): 528-537. Find it on PubMed