The classification accuracy of Warrington's recognition memory test (words) as a performance validity Test in a neurorehabilitation setting.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-06-24 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2024.2337130
Jenna Parsons, Nelson B Rodrigues, Laszlo A Erdodi
{"title":"The classification accuracy of Warrington's recognition memory test (words) as a performance validity Test in a neurorehabilitation setting.","authors":"Jenna Parsons, Nelson B Rodrigues, Laszlo A Erdodi","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2337130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Warrington's Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in 167 patients (97 or 58.1% men; <i>M</i><sub>Age</sub> = 40.4; <i>M</i><sub>Education</sub>= 13.8) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation against five psychometrically defined criterion groups. At the optimal cutoff (≤42), the RMT produced an acceptable combination of sensitivity (.36-.60) and specificity (.85-.95), correctly classifying 68.4-83.3% of the sample. Making the cutoff more conservative (≤41) improved specificity (.88-.95) at the expense of sensitivity (.30-.60). Lowering the cutoff to ≤40 achieved uniformly high specificity (.91-.95) but diminished sensitivity (.27-.48). RMT scores were unrelated to lateral dominance, education, or gender. The RMT was sensitive to a three-way classification of performance validity (<i>Pass/Borderline/Fail</i>), further demonstrating its discriminant power. Despite a notable decline in research studies focused on its classification accuracy within the last decade, the RMT remains an effective free-standing PVT that is robust to demographic variables. Relatively low sensitivity is its main liability. Further research is needed on its cross-cultural validity (sensitivity to limited English proficiency).</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","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/10.1080/23279095.2024.2337130","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

This study was designed to evaluate the classification accuracy of the Warrington's Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in 167 patients (97 or 58.1% men; MAge = 40.4; MEducation= 13.8) medically referred for neuropsychological evaluation against five psychometrically defined criterion groups. At the optimal cutoff (≤42), the RMT produced an acceptable combination of sensitivity (.36-.60) and specificity (.85-.95), correctly classifying 68.4-83.3% of the sample. Making the cutoff more conservative (≤41) improved specificity (.88-.95) at the expense of sensitivity (.30-.60). Lowering the cutoff to ≤40 achieved uniformly high specificity (.91-.95) but diminished sensitivity (.27-.48). RMT scores were unrelated to lateral dominance, education, or gender. The RMT was sensitive to a three-way classification of performance validity (Pass/Borderline/Fail), further demonstrating its discriminant power. Despite a notable decline in research studies focused on its classification accuracy within the last decade, the RMT remains an effective free-standing PVT that is robust to demographic variables. Relatively low sensitivity is its main liability. Further research is needed on its cross-cultural validity (sensitivity to limited English proficiency).

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
沃灵顿识别记忆测试(单词)的分类准确性作为神经康复环境中的成绩效度测试。
本研究旨在评估沃林顿辨认记忆测验(RMT)的分类准确性,该测验针对 167 名转诊进行神经心理评估的患者(97 人,男性占 58.1%;平均年龄 = 40.4;教育程度 = 13.8),根据心理测量学定义的五个标准组进行分类。在最佳临界值(≤42)下,RMT 可产生可接受的灵敏度(.36-.60)和特异度(.85-.95)组合,可对 68.4-83.3% 的样本进行正确分类。使临界值更保守(≤41)可提高特异性(.88-.95),但牺牲了灵敏度(.30-.60)。将临界值降低到≤40时,特异性同样很高(.91-.95),但敏感性却降低了(.27-.48)。RMT 评分与侧优势、教育程度或性别无关。RMT 对成绩有效性的三方分类(及格/临界/不及格)很敏感,这进一步证明了它的判别能力。尽管在过去的十年中,以其分类准确性为重点的研究明显减少,但 RMT 仍然是一种有效的独立 PVT,对人口统计学变量具有稳健性。灵敏度相对较低是其主要缺陷。还需要进一步研究其跨文化有效性(对英语水平有限的敏感性)。
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