Cross-cultural comparison of the performance on the Five-Point test between highly educated comparable samples of Argentina and South Africa.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-05-20 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2024.2352500
Alberto Luis Fernandez, Sharon Truter
{"title":"Cross-cultural comparison of the performance on the Five-Point test between highly educated comparable samples of Argentina and South Africa.","authors":"Alberto Luis Fernandez, Sharon Truter","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2352500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to carry out a cross-cultural analysis by comparing Five-Point test scores for two different countries. The Five-Point test measures design fluency, an executive function, and is an inexpensive test that makes it more accessible to assessment settings, including under-resourced settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults in Argentina (<i>n</i> = 90) and South Africa (<i>n</i> = 90) with tertiary levels of education were tested on the Five-Point Test. ANOVA was applied to compare the scores of the two groups on the total number of unique designs produced (Total Unique Designs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study found no significant differences in the Total Unique Designs scores between the two groups (<i>p</i> = .13; <i>η</i> = 0.01). Correlations between demographic variables and the Total Unique Designs scores varied slightly across both samples.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite large cultural differences between both samples (language, race, religion, income) scores on this test did not differ significantly. These findings provide initial evidence of scalar equivalence on the test across these samples. Norms for the Five-Point Test Total Unique Designs scores might be used interchangeably between these two highly educated groups from different countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2352500","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The study aimed to carry out a cross-cultural analysis by comparing Five-Point test scores for two different countries. The Five-Point test measures design fluency, an executive function, and is an inexpensive test that makes it more accessible to assessment settings, including under-resourced settings.

Methods: Adults in Argentina (n = 90) and South Africa (n = 90) with tertiary levels of education were tested on the Five-Point Test. ANOVA was applied to compare the scores of the two groups on the total number of unique designs produced (Total Unique Designs).

Results: The study found no significant differences in the Total Unique Designs scores between the two groups (p = .13; η = 0.01). Correlations between demographic variables and the Total Unique Designs scores varied slightly across both samples.

Conclusions: Despite large cultural differences between both samples (language, race, religion, income) scores on this test did not differ significantly. These findings provide initial evidence of scalar equivalence on the test across these samples. Norms for the Five-Point Test Total Unique Designs scores might be used interchangeably between these two highly educated groups from different countries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿根廷和南非受过高等教育的可比样本在五点测试中成绩的跨文化比较。
研究目的本研究旨在通过比较两个不同国家的五点测试得分,进行跨文化分析。五点测试测量的是设计流畅性(一种执行功能),该测试价格低廉,更易于在评估环境中使用,包括在资源不足的环境中使用:方法:对阿根廷(90 人)和南非(90 人)受过高等教育的成年人进行了五点测试。采用方差分析比较两组在独特设计总数(独特设计总数)上的得分:研究发现,两组学生的独特设计总数得分无明显差异(p = .13;η = 0.01)。两个样本的人口统计学变量与独特设计总分之间的相关性略有不同:尽管两个样本之间存在巨大的文化差异(语言、种族、宗教、收入),但该测试的得分并无显著差异。这些发现初步证明了这两个样本在该测验上的等量性。在这两个来自不同国家的受过高等教育的群体中,五点测验独特设计总分的标准可以互换使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
期刊最新文献
Once is enough! An analogue study on repeated validity assessment in adults with ADHD. Validation of the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-III for detecting vascular dementia in Iranian patients with stroke: A secondary data analysis. Are there predictable neuropsychological impairments in persons with functional movement disorder? Associations between ADHD symptoms, executive function and frontal EEG in college students. Characteristics of cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome in patients with acute cerebellar stroke and its impact on outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1