|
Showing 1 - 3 of
3 matches in All Departments
The impetus for this volume began with our research in the 1980's
involving serial neuropsychological evaluation with various patient
populations. At that time, reports on the practice effects
associated with routinely utilized clinical neuropsychological
instruments were sparse. While test-retest data were available for
almost all assessment instruments, this was usually in the form of
correlation coefficients and not changes in mean performance
between or across assessment periods (see McCaffrey &
Westervelt, 1995 for a detailed discussion of these and related
issues). Clinical neuropsychological practitioners had few
guidelines to assist them in determining if a change in a patient's
performance across assessments was due to an intervention,
maturation, practice effects, or a combination of factors. This
volume represents our efforts at reviewing the literature between
1970 and 1998 and extracting the reported information on practice
effects. The tables include the assessment instrument used,
information on the subject/patient groups, the sample size (n},
gender, age, intervention, interval between the assessments, scores
at both assessment points, and the citation. Those studies that
reported data on more than two assessment points are indicated by a
notation~ however, any data beyond the second assessment are not
reported and the interested reader should refer to the original
article. The tables are arranged alphabetically for the most widely
used assessment instruments. Those instruments for which there was
limited data on practice effects are grouped by "domain" (e. g.
While conducting research on intellectual and neuropsychological
perfonnance of various patient populations across time, we became
aware of the lack of information concerning practice effects
associated with many widely used assessment instruments. Although
test-retest data were available for almost all of these
instruments, it typically came in the form of correlation
coefficients and mean changes in performance between assessments
was often absent. In a 1995 article (McCaffrey & Westervelt,
1995), we discussed a number of issues relevant to serial
neuropsychological and intellectual assessment and concluded that
clinical neuropsychological practitioners had few guidelines to
assist them in interpreting change in a patient's performance
across assessments. This volume represents our efforts at reviewing
the literature between 1970 and 1998 and extracting the reported
information on practice effects. The tables include the assessment
instrument used, information on the subject/patient groups, the
sample size fu}, gender, age, intervention, interval between the
assessments, scores at both assessment points, and the citation.
The tables reflect the existing published literature within
intellectual assessment and, therefore, some instruments (e.g.,
Wechsler tests) comprise a majority of the tables whereas others
(e.g., Raven's Progressive Matrices, Stanford-Binet) do not. The
test index is arranged by the name of the test as reported in the
specific article. We caution readers to refer to the original
articles if additional or more specific information is needed.
The impetus for this volume began with our research in the 1980's
involving serial neuropsychological evaluation with various patient
populations. At that time, reports on the practice effects
associated with routinely utilized clinical neuropsychological
instruments were sparse. While test-retest data were available for
almost all assessment instruments, this was usually in the form of
correlation coefficients and not changes in mean performance
between or across assessment periods (see McCaffrey &
Westervelt, 1995 for a detailed discussion of these and related
issues). Clinical neuropsychological practitioners had few
guidelines to assist them in determining if a change in a patient's
performance across assessments was due to an intervention,
maturation, practice effects, or a combination of factors. This
volume represents our efforts at reviewing the literature between
1970 and 1998 and extracting the reported information on practice
effects. The tables include the assessment instrument used,
information on the subject/patient groups, the sample size (n},
gender, age, intervention, interval between the assessments, scores
at both assessment points, and the citation. Those studies that
reported data on more than two assessment points are indicated by a
notation~ however, any data beyond the second assessment are not
reported and the interested reader should refer to the original
article. The tables are arranged alphabetically for the most widely
used assessment instruments. Those instruments for which there was
limited data on practice effects are grouped by "domain" (e. g.
|
You may like...
Morbius
Jared Leto, Matt Smith, …
DVD
R179
Discovery Miles 1 790
|