Standardized assessment method for cognitive impairment degree of disabled people

Abstract

The invention provides a standardized assessment method for the cognitive impairment degree of disabled people, and the method comprises the following steps: setting a plurality of cognitive assessment units, carrying out the arrangement and grouping of the cognitive assessment units, dividing the cognitive assessment units into at least three assessment groups, setting an object module in each assessment unit, setting a unique identifier in each object module, setting an operation instruction according to each identifier; object modules in the cognitive evaluation units are correspondingly associated in the sensing module, each evaluation group is independently displayed on the sensing module, and when a to-be-evaluated user receives an operation instruction, feedback is carried out on the cognitive evaluation units in the evaluation groups in the sensing module; and after receiving the feedback, the cognitive evaluation unit matches the identifier in the object module with the sent operation instruction, adds one to the count if the matching is successful, and does not count if the matching is unsuccessful.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention belongs to the field of assessment, and in particular relates to a standardized assessment method for the degree of cognitive dysfunction of disabled persons. Background Art

[0002] The assessment of the degree of cognitive impairment in disabled people is an important topic in the field of rehabilitation medicine and disability services. It is of great significance for formulating personalized rehabilitation programs, allocating social resources and improving the quality of life of disabled people. However, existing assessment methods have many shortcomings and cannot meet current needs. Traditional assessment methods mainly rely on neuropsychological tests, questionnaires and clinical observations, which face many challenges in practical applications.

[0003] There is a lack of uniformity in the assessment standards. The standards and methods used by different regions, institutions and assessors vary greatly, making it difficult to compare and integrate the assessment results. Secondly, the assessment content is often not comprehensive enough. Many methods only focus on specific cognitive areas, such as memory or attention, while ignoring other important cognitive functions and failing to provide comprehensive assessment results. The assessment process is usually time-consuming, which not only increases the cost of the assessment, but also brings additional burdens to the disabled.

[0004] Existing methods generally have the problem of strong subjectivity, over-reliance on the personal experience and judgment of the assessor, and are easily affected by bias, which reduces the objectivity and reliability of the assessment results. Another significant disadvantage is that it is difficult to adapt to different types of disabilities. Existing methods often have difficulty in taking into account special needs such as visual, hearing or physical impairments, which may lead to inaccurate assessment results. Most assessment methods only provide static "snapshot" results, lack dynamic assessment capabilities, and cannot reflect the changing trends and potential improvement space of the cognitive functions of disabled people. The lack of quantification of assessment results is also a common problem. The results provided by many methods are qualitative or semi-quantitative, making it difficult to conduct accurate data analysis and comparison. Cultural and language bias is another issue worthy of attention. Many assessment tools are developed based on specific cultural backgrounds, which may cause bias when applied across cultures, affecting the accuracy of the assessment. Existing methods generally lack personalization and are difficult to flexibly adjust according to individual special circumstances. Insufficient technical support also limits the efficiency and accuracy of assessments. Most traditional assessment methods fail to make full use of modern technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data analysis. In special circumstances or for disabled people with limited mobility, existing methods are difficult to achieve effective remote assessment.

[0005] The lack of applicability of assessment results is also an important issue. The results provided by many assessment methods are difficult to directly convert into specific rehabilitation plans or service recommendations, and are not very practical. These shortcomings have seriously restricted the effectiveness and scope of application of cognitive dysfunction assessment for people with disabilities. It is urgent to develop new standardized assessment methods to overcome these problems and provide more accurate, comprehensive, and personalized assessment results to guide rehabilitation treatment, formulate policies, and allocate resources, and ultimately improve the quality of life and social participation of people with disabilities. Summary of the invention

[0006] The present invention proposes a standardized assessment method for the degree of cognitive dysfunction of disabled persons. The present application document solves the problems existing in the assessment of cognitive dysfunction of disabled persons, such as inconsistent standards, incomplete assessment, strong subjectivity, difficulty in quantification, lack of personalization, and insufficient technical support. By setting standardized assessment units, group assessment, objective feedback mechanism, data matching counting, hierarchical model establishment, and parameter weight correction, a more objective, comprehensive, accurate, and personalized assessment of cognitive dysfunction is achieved, and the accuracy and practicality of the assessment are improved.

[0007] The technical solution of the present invention is implemented as follows: a standardized evaluation method for the degree of cognitive dysfunction of disabled persons, the method comprising the following steps:

[0008] Setting a number of recognition assessment units, arranging and grouping the recognition assessment units into at least three assessment groups, setting an object module in each assessment unit, setting a unique identifier in each object module, and setting an operation instruction according to each identifier;

[0009] In the sensing module, the object modules in the cognitive evaluation unit are correspondingly associated, and each evaluation group is displayed separately on the sensing module. When the user to be evaluated receives the operation instruction, the user gives feedback to the cognitive evaluation unit in the evaluation group in the sensing unit;

[0010] After receiving the feedback, the cognitive evaluation unit matches the sent operation instruction with the identifier in the object module. If the match is successful, the count is increased by one, and if the match is unsuccessful, the count is not counted;

[0011] After traversing the operation instructions corresponding to the identifiers in the object modules in all the evaluation groups, the evaluation count parameters are obtained, the evaluation count parameters are classified, a cognitive impairment degree model is established, and the classified parameters are imported into the cognitive impairment degree model for backup;

[0012] The data in the cognitive impairment degree model are integrated, and the standard estimated parameter weights are established through the data distribution value. The standard estimated parameter weights are imported into the evaluation counting parameters for parameter correction, and then the evaluation results are output.

[0013] This standardized assessment method for the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled people has many significant innovations and advantages compared with existing technologies. This method achieves comprehensiveness and systematicity of the assessment by setting up multiple cognitive assessment units and grouping them. Traditional methods often only focus on certain specific cognitive areas and ignore other important cognitive functions, resulting in incomplete assessment results.

[0014] This method ensures a comprehensive assessment of cognitive functions by setting up at least three evaluation groups, overcoming the shortcomings of the existing technology in that the evaluation content is not comprehensive. The object module and unique identifier are set in each evaluation unit, and the operation instructions are set according to the identifier. This design greatly improves the accuracy and objectivity of the evaluation. Traditional methods often rely on the subjective judgment of the evaluator and are easily affected by personal experience and prejudice. However, this method reduces the interference of subjective factors through standardized object modules and operation instructions, making the evaluation results more objective and reliable.

[0015] This method introduces a sensing module, associates the assessment unit with the sensing module, and displays the assessment group on the sensing module, making the assessment process interactive and intuitive. This design not only improves the efficiency of the assessment, but also makes the assessment process more friendly and easy to understand for people with disabilities, overcoming the problems of the traditional method of complex and time-consuming assessment process.

[0016] An automatic matching and counting mechanism was used in the evaluation process, and the automatic processing of the evaluation results was achieved by matching the identifiers in the object module with the operation instructions. This method greatly reduced human errors, improved the accuracy and efficiency of the evaluation, and solved the problem of cumbersome and error-prone data processing in traditional methods. By establishing a cognitive impairment degree model and performing data grading, this method achieved quantification and standardization of the evaluation results. This overcomes the problem that the evaluation results in traditional methods are difficult to quantify and compare, and allows the evaluation results of different individuals and different periods to be effectively compared and analyzed.

[0017] The concept of standard estimated parameter weights was introduced, and weights were established and parameter corrections were made through data distribution values, which enhanced the scientificity and personalization of the evaluation results. This method takes into account the different importance of different cognitive functions in the overall evaluation, making the evaluation results more accurate and personalized, and solving the problem of "one size fits all" in traditional methods. The entire evaluation process is highly reproducible and consistent, solving the problem of inconsistent evaluation standards in traditional methods. Comparable results can be obtained regardless of which evaluator or in which region the evaluation is conducted, which is of great significance for large-scale evaluation and cross-regional comparative studies.

[0018] This method has good flexibility and scalability. By adjusting the settings and grouping of cognitive assessment units, it can adapt to different types of disabilities and different degrees of cognitive impairment, overcoming the shortcomings of traditional methods that are difficult to adapt to different types of disabilities. This method provides the possibility of remote assessment. Since the assessment process is highly standardized and digitized, it can be evaluated through remote devices, which is particularly useful in special circumstances (such as during an epidemic) or for disabled people with limited mobility, solving the problem that traditional methods are difficult to conduct remote assessments.

[0019] The evaluation results of this method have high application value. By establishing a cognitive impairment degree model and parameter weights, the evaluation results can be directly used to formulate personalized rehabilitation plans and service recommendations, which improves the practicality of the evaluation results and overcomes the shortcomings of traditional methods that the evaluation results are difficult to directly apply. This new evaluation method comprehensively improves the accuracy, objectivity, comprehensiveness and practicality of cognitive dysfunction evaluation for disabled people through innovations such as structured design, automated processing, data model establishment and parameter weight adjustment, and represents an important technological advancement in this field.

[0020] As a preferred implementation, the object module includes any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters, and when setting the identifier, the operation instruction corresponding to the identifier is synchronously converted into voice, text and logo.

[0021] As a preferred embodiment, when any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters is selected for setting, the object module is simultaneously color-set, with red, yellow and blue attached to the set object module.

[0022] As a preferred implementation, after the sensing module is associated with the object module, the evaluation group sets an arrow array pointing to one of two directions, and receives the operation instruction after the evaluation user enters the evaluation group through the identification arrow array.

[0023] As a preferred embodiment, the arrow array includes arrows pointing upward and arrows pointing downward, and arrows in either direction are preset in the evaluation group.

[0024] As a preferred implementation, when the user to be evaluated provides feedback, if the number of unsuccessful matches in a single evaluation group exceeds a set number, the evaluation is stopped and the evaluation result is directly output.

[0025] After adopting the above technical solution, the beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows: by setting multiple cognitive assessment units and grouping them, different aspects of cognitive functions can be comprehensively assessed, thereby improving the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the assessment. The design using object modules and unique identifiers makes the assessment process more structured and traceable, facilitating data analysis and result review. Interactive assessment through the sensing module improves the interactivity and user-friendliness of the assessment, making it suitable for people with disabilities of varying degrees. The real-time matching and counting mechanism during the assessment process ensures the objectivity and accuracy of the assessment results.

[0026] Establishing a cognitive impairment degree model and storing data provides a basis for long-term tracking and comparison. Establishing standard estimated parameter weights through data distribution values ​​and making parameter corrections improves the scientificity and reliability of the evaluation results. This method can not only provide more accurate cognitive impairment assessments for people with disabilities, but also provide strong support for the formulation of personalized rehabilitation plans and medical decisions, and also provide a reliable data basis for related research and policy making. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0027] In order to more clearly illustrate the embodiments of the present invention or the technical solutions in the prior art, the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present invention. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without paying creative labor.

[0028] Figure 1 The figure is a flow chart of the method of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0029] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0030] Example:

[0031] like Figure 1 As shown, a standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment in disabled persons comprises the following steps:

[0032] Setting a number of recognition assessment units, arranging and grouping the recognition assessment units into at least three assessment groups, setting an object module in each assessment unit, setting a unique identifier in each object module, and setting an operation instruction according to each identifier;

[0033] In the sensing module, the object modules in the cognitive evaluation unit are correspondingly associated, and each evaluation group is displayed separately on the sensing module. When the user to be evaluated receives the operation instruction, the user gives feedback to the cognitive evaluation unit in the evaluation group in the sensing unit;

[0034] After receiving the feedback, the cognitive evaluation unit matches the sent operation instruction with the identifier in the object module. If the match is successful, the count is increased by one, and if the match is unsuccessful, the count is not counted;

[0035] After traversing the operation instructions corresponding to the identifiers in the object modules in all the evaluation groups, the evaluation count parameters are obtained, the evaluation count parameters are classified, a cognitive impairment degree model is established, and the classified parameters are imported into the cognitive impairment degree model for backup;

[0036] The data in the cognitive impairment degree model are integrated, and the standard estimated parameter weights are established through the data distribution value. The standard estimated parameter weights are imported into the evaluation counting parameters for parameter correction, and then the evaluation results are output.

[0037] The working principle and process of this standardized assessment method for the degree of cognitive dysfunction of disabled people mainly involve several key steps, such as the setting of assessment units, the collection of user feedback, data processing and result output. First, a structured assessment framework was established by setting up multiple cognitive assessment units and grouping them. Each assessment unit contains an object module and a unique identifier. This design allows the system to accurately track and analyze user responses. In the sensing module, the assessment unit is visualized, and the user provides feedback based on the operating instructions. This interactive assessment method can better capture the user's actual cognitive ability. The system judges the correctness of the response by comparing the user feedback with the preset operating instructions and counts them. This method can not only assess the user's cognitive accuracy, but also measure the reaction speed and consistency. After the assessment is completed, the system will classify the collected data and establish a cognitive impairment degree model.

[0038] This model can store and analyze large amounts of data, providing a reference benchmark for subsequent evaluations. Finally, by establishing standard estimated parameter weights and making parameter corrections, the system can generate more accurate and personalized evaluation results. Compared with traditional technologies, this method has the following advantages: the evaluation process is more standardized and objective, reducing the impact of human factors; through grouping and modular design, the evaluation content is more comprehensive, and detailed evaluations can be performed for different types of cognitive functions; interactive evaluations using sensing modules improve user participation and evaluation accuracy; a cognitive impairment degree model is established to achieve long-term storage and analysis of data, which is conducive to tracking the changing trends of user cognitive functions; standard estimated parameter weights are introduced to make evaluation results more accurate and personalized; the entire evaluation process can be automated, improving evaluation efficiency while reducing labor costs; the system is highly flexible and can adjust evaluation units and parameters as needed to meet the needs of different types of cognitive impairment evaluations.

[0039] This method combines advanced data processing technology and human-computer interaction design to achieve a more scientific, accurate and easy-to-implement method for assessing cognitive dysfunction, providing important data support for the rehabilitation and care of disabled people.

[0040] The object module includes any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters. When setting an identifier, the operation instruction corresponding to the identifier is synchronously converted into voice, text and logo.

[0041] Traditional cognitive function assessment methods are usually limited to a single type of test items, such as pure text or pure graphics, which lacks diversity and comprehensiveness. In contrast, this method introduces a variety of object modules including numbers, graphics, symbols and letters. This diversified design greatly enhances the comprehensiveness and adaptability of the assessment.

[0042] Diverse object modules can more comprehensively assess different types of cognitive functions. For example, numbers can be used to assess mathematical calculation ability, graphics can test spatial cognitive ability, symbols can assess abstract thinking ability, and letters can be used to assess language ability. This comprehensive coverage ensures that the assessment results can reflect the various aspects of the cognitive function of the person being assessed. Multiple types of object modules increase the flexibility of the assessment, allowing the assessment method to adapt to different types and degrees of cognitive impairment.

[0043] For example, for people with disabilities who have limited language skills but good visual abilities, more graphic and symbolic object modules can be used. This flexibility allows the assessment method to adapt to a wider range of people and improves the universality of the assessment. Another important innovation is to convert the operation instructions corresponding to the identifiers into voice, text, and logos simultaneously. This multimodal instruction presentation overcomes the limitations of the single instruction mode in traditional assessment methods. Voice instructions can help people with visual impairments, text instructions are suitable for people with hearing impairments, and logo conversion can assist those who have poor comprehension ability. This multimodal instruction presentation ensures the fairness and accessibility of the assessment process, so that people with different types of disabilities can fully understand and respond to the assessment requirements. At the same time, multimodal instructions also help improve the accuracy of the assessment because it reduces incorrect responses caused by unclear instructions.

[0044] The effects of this design are multifaceted: it significantly improves the inclusiveness and adaptability of the assessment, making the assessment method applicable to a wider group of people with disabilities; it enhances the accuracy and reliability of the assessment by presenting instructions in a variety of ways, reducing the possibility of misunderstanding and incorrect responses; it improves the user-friendliness of the assessment process, making the assessees feel more comfortable and confident; this design provides richer data for future research, which can provide in-depth analysis of the relationship between different types of cognitive functions and the impact of different instruction modes on assessment results.

[0045] When any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters is selected for setting, the object module is simultaneously set in color, with red, yellow and blue attached to the set object module.

[0046] Traditional cognitive function assessment methods usually use monochrome or black and white test items, ignoring the important role of color in the cognitive process. In contrast, this method simultaneously introduces three basic colors, red, yellow, and blue, into the object module. This design greatly enhances the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the assessment.

[0047] The introduction of color increases the dimension and complexity of the assessment. Color perception and recognition are important components of cognitive function. By adding color elements to the object module, the visual cognitive ability, attention allocation and information processing ability of the test subject can be more comprehensively assessed.

[0048] For example, the speed and accuracy of the person being evaluated in identifying objects of a specific color can be tested, or their ability to allocate attention in a multi-color environment can be evaluated. Secondly, the choice of the three basic colors of red, yellow, and blue has far-reaching significance. These three colors are not only basic visual colors, but also have special significance at the psychological and cognitive level. Red is usually associated with warnings and urgency, yellow represents attention and vitality, and blue is often associated with calmness and rationality. Through the combination of these three colors, the reaction speed and emotional response of the person being tested to different color stimuli can be evaluated, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of their cognitive and emotional processing abilities.

[0049] The introduction of color can also improve the flexibility and adaptability of the assessment. For certain types of cognitive impairment, such as color blindness or color weakness, the assessment of color recognition ability can provide important diagnostic information. At the same time, for some visually impaired people, the introduction of color may improve the recognition of object modules, thereby improving the accuracy of the assessment.

[0050] The effects of this design are multifaceted: it significantly improves the comprehensiveness of the assessment, allowing the assessment results to more comprehensively reflect the cognitive function status of the person being assessed; it enhances the accuracy of the assessment, and the color element can more finely distinguish different degrees of cognitive impairment; it increases the fun and participation of the assessment, and the introduction of color can reduce the fatigue of the person being assessed and maintain his or her attention and interest; this design provides richer data for future research, which can provide in-depth analysis of the relationship between color perception and other cognitive functions.

[0051] This innovative color setting method represents an important advancement in cognitive dysfunction assessment technology, creating conditions for providing more comprehensive, accurate and personalized assessments. It is expected to significantly improve the quality and effectiveness of cognitive function assessments for people with disabilities, while also providing new research directions and data support for related neuroscience and psychology research.

[0052] After the sensing module is associated with the object module, the evaluation group sets an arrow array pointing to one of two directions, and receives the operation instruction after the evaluation user enters the evaluation group through the identification arrow array.

[0053] Traditional cognitive function assessment methods usually adopt a linear and fixed assessment process, which lacks interactivity and dynamism. In contrast, this method introduces the design of arrow array guidance and step-by-step operation instructions, which greatly enhances the flexibility and accuracy of the assessment.

[0054] The design of setting up an array of arrows pointing in one of two directions adds interactivity and decision-making elements to the assessment process. This not only tests the visual recognition ability of the person being assessed, but also assesses their ability to understand instructions and make decisions. The design of the arrow array simulates common directional signs in daily life, making the assessment closer to real-life scenarios and improving the ecological validity of the assessment.

[0055] The assessee is required to identify the arrow array and enter the assessment group before receiving the operation instruction. This step-by-step design helps to assess multiple aspects of cognitive function. It not only tests the assessee's attention and visual processing ability, but also assesses his ability to follow instructions, sequence processing and executive function. This design can more finely distinguish different types and degrees of cognitive impairment.

[0056] This method increases the difficulty gradient of the assessment. By identifying the direction first and then receiving specific instructions, the assessment process becomes more complex and challenging, and can better distinguish between mild and severe cognitive dysfunction. This difficulty gradient setting makes the assessment results more accurate and discriminatory. This design also increases the flexibility of the assessment. The direction of the arrow array can be adjusted as needed, which allows the assessment to adapt to different types of cognitive impairment and different degrees of disability.

[0057] For example, for people with milder visual impairment, a more complex arrow array can be used; while for people with weaker cognitive functions, the complexity of the arrow array can be simplified. The effects of this setting are multifaceted: it significantly improves the comprehensiveness of the assessment, not only assessing basic cognitive functions, but also including higher-level cognitive processes such as decision-making ability and executive function; it enhances the accuracy of the assessment, and through a multi-step design, it can more finely distinguish different degrees of cognitive impairment; it improves the ecological validity of the assessment, making the assessment process closer to real-life scenarios and improving the practicality of the assessment results; this design provides richer data for future research, which can deeply analyze the relationship and mutual influence between different cognitive functions.

[0058] The arrow array includes arrows pointing upward and arrows pointing downward, and arrows in either direction are preset in the evaluation group.

[0059] Traditional cognitive function assessment methods usually use fixed, single-direction instructions or complex multi-directional selections, which lack simplicity and flexibility. In contrast, this method introduces a binary arrow array pointing up and down, and presets one of the directions in the assessment group. This design greatly enhances the accuracy and adaptability of the assessment.

[0060] The simple choice of up and down directions reduces the complexity of the task while retaining sufficient discrimination difficulty. This binary choice is suitable for assessees of various cognitive levels, and is neither too simple to lose discrimination nor too complex to exceed the capabilities of some disabled people. The design of the preset direction increases the randomness and unpredictability of the assessment. This not only tests the visual recognition ability of the assessee, but also assesses his or her attention, reaction speed and adaptability. The change of the preset direction can prevent the assessee from forming a fixed response pattern, thereby improving the accuracy of the assessment.

[0061] In addition, the choice of up and down direction is universal and intuitive. This design takes into account the different cultural backgrounds and educational levels of the assessees, reducing the impact of language and cultural factors on the assessment results. At the same time, the up and down direction is also closely related to the spatial positioning perception of the human body, which can indirectly assess the spatial cognitive ability of the assessee. This design also has good scalability.

[0062] For example, the difficulty can be increased or other cognitive functions can be tested by changing the size, color or arrangement of the arrows. The learning ability and pattern recognition ability of the person being evaluated can also be evaluated by adjusting the frequency or pattern of the preset direction. The role of this setting is multifaceted: it significantly improves the applicability of the assessment, making the assessment method applicable to people with different cognitive levels and different types of disabilities; it enhances the objectivity and accuracy of the assessment, and reduces the influence of subjective factors through simple and clear binary choices; it improves the efficiency of the assessment, and simple up and down direction selection can quickly complete multiple assessments and collect more data; this design provides a flexible framework for future research, and the relationship between different cognitive functions can be studied by adjusting the specific parameters of the arrow array.

[0063] When the user to be evaluated gives feedback, if the number of unsuccessful matches in a single evaluation group exceeds a set number, the evaluation is stopped and the evaluation result is directly output. Traditional cognitive function evaluation methods usually use tests of fixed length or fixed time, and the entire evaluation process will be completed regardless of the performance of the person being evaluated. In contrast, this method introduces a dynamic termination mechanism based on the number of unsuccessful matches. This design greatly enhances the efficiency and humanization of the evaluation.

[0064] This mechanism can quickly identify cases of severe cognitive impairment. When the person being assessed frequently fails to match in a single assessment group, it is likely that there are serious problems with their cognitive function. By stopping the assessment in a timely manner, unnecessary stress and frustration can be avoided for the person being assessed, while also saving assessment time. This design improves the accuracy of the assessment. In traditional methods, even if the person being assessed is no longer able to respond correctly, he or she will continue to complete all test items, which may result in a large amount of invalid data and affect the accuracy of the assessment results. This method ensures that the collected data is valid and meaningful by terminating in a timely manner. In addition, this mechanism increases the adaptability of the assessment. The length of the assessment can be automatically adjusted for different degrees of cognitive impairment.

[0065] For assessees with better cognitive function, more assessment items can be completed; for assessees with severely impaired cognitive function, the assessment will end earlier. This adaptive feature makes the assessment process more personalized and efficient. This design also reflects respect and care for the assessees. By avoiding unnecessary difficult tests, the frustration and anxiety that the assessees may experience are reduced, making the entire assessment process more humane. At the same time, this mechanism also provides assessors with the opportunity to intervene in a timely manner. When the assessment ends early, the assessor can immediately focus on the specific difficulties of the assessee and consider whether other forms of assessment or support are needed.

[0066] The effects of this setting are multifaceted: it significantly improves the efficiency of the evaluation and reduces unnecessary waste of time; it enhances the reliability of the evaluation results and improves the accuracy of the evaluation by excluding invalid data; it improves the humanity of the evaluation and reduces the psychological pressure on the person being evaluated; this design provides more flexibility for the evaluation, and the termination threshold can be adjusted according to different evaluation purposes and the characteristics of the person being evaluated.

[0067] The above description is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention and is not intended to limit the present invention. Any modifications, equivalent substitutions, improvements, etc. made within the spirit and principle of the present invention should be included in the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment in disabled persons, characterized in that: The method comprises the following steps: Setting a number of recognition assessment units, arranging and grouping the recognition assessment units into at least three assessment groups, setting an object module in each assessment unit, setting a unique identifier in each object module, and setting an operation instruction according to each identifier; In the sensing module, the object modules in the cognitive evaluation unit are correspondingly associated, and each evaluation group is displayed separately on the sensing module. When the user to be evaluated receives the operation instruction, the user gives feedback to the cognitive evaluation unit in the evaluation group in the sensing unit; After receiving the feedback, the cognitive evaluation unit matches the sent operation instruction with the identifier in the object module. If the match is successful, the count is increased by one, and if the match is unsuccessful, the count is not counted; After traversing the operation instructions corresponding to the identifiers in the object modules in all the evaluation groups, the evaluation count parameters are obtained, the evaluation count parameters are classified, a cognitive impairment degree model is established, and the classified parameters are imported into the cognitive impairment degree model for backup; The data in the cognitive impairment degree model are integrated, and the standard estimated parameter weights are established through the data distribution value. The standard estimated parameter weights are imported into the evaluation counting parameters for parameter correction, and then the evaluation results are output.

2. The standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled persons according to claim 1, characterized in that: The object module includes any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters. When setting an identifier, the operation instruction corresponding to the identifier is synchronously converted into voice, text and logo.

3. The standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled persons according to claim 2, characterized in that: When any one of numbers, graphics, symbols and letters is selected for setting, the object module is simultaneously set in color, with red, yellow and blue attached to the set object module.

4. The standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled persons according to claim 1, characterized in that: After the sensing module is associated with the object module, the evaluation group sets an arrow array pointing to one of two directions, and receives the operation instruction after the evaluation user enters the evaluation group through the identification arrow array.

5. The standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled persons according to claim 4, characterized in that: The arrow array includes arrows pointing upward and arrows pointing downward, and arrows in either direction are preset in the evaluation group.

6. The standardized method for assessing the degree of cognitive impairment of disabled persons according to claim 1, characterized in that: When the user to be evaluated is providing feedback, if the number of unsuccessful matches in a single evaluation group exceeds a set number, the evaluation is stopped and the evaluation result is directly output.

Images