Identifying culturally insensitive tests, stimuli, and assessment practices in neuropsychology: A survey of professionals and trainees.

Christina G Wong,Sana F Arastu,Rowena Ng
{"title":"Identifying culturally insensitive tests, stimuli, and assessment practices in neuropsychology: A survey of professionals and trainees.","authors":"Christina G Wong,Sana F Arastu,Rowena Ng","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2405064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\r\nIdentify culturally insensitive tests and assessment practices based on a survey of neuropsychologists and neuropsychology trainees.\r\n\r\nMETHOD\r\nA survey was distributed to neuropsychology and psychology listservs asking for respondents to report tests, stimuli, and/or assessment practices perceived as being culturally insensitive and for which populations. A total of 100 participants provided responses, which were coded by three raters to identify commonly reported themes. Frequencies of themes (i.e. different issues related to culturally insensitive tests and practices) and how often specific tests were reported as culturally insensitive were determined.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nLack of exposure due to items being biased toward U.S./Westernized culture or being unfamiliar based on age cohort, regional differences, and language background was the most commonly reported theme (20.1%), followed by tests and stimuli that were considered to be triggering or culturally offensive (17.4%). Among responses that mentioned specific tests, the Boston Naming Test was most frequently reported (43.2%), followed by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Verbal subtests (20.3%), and Story B from the Wechsler Memory Scale-IV Logical Memory subtest (10.1%).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nBeyond the Boston Naming Test noose item, which was recently replaced, survey respondents identified several other culturally insensitive tests and assessment practices that may negatively impact an examinee's performance and their assessment experience. These results emphasize the need for more research to inform test revisions, updated normative data, and increased consideration for cultural differences to provide more equitable neuropsychological assessment services.","PeriodicalId":501205,"journal":{"name":"The Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":"605 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2405064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Identify culturally insensitive tests and assessment practices based on a survey of neuropsychologists and neuropsychology trainees. METHOD A survey was distributed to neuropsychology and psychology listservs asking for respondents to report tests, stimuli, and/or assessment practices perceived as being culturally insensitive and for which populations. A total of 100 participants provided responses, which were coded by three raters to identify commonly reported themes. Frequencies of themes (i.e. different issues related to culturally insensitive tests and practices) and how often specific tests were reported as culturally insensitive were determined. RESULTS Lack of exposure due to items being biased toward U.S./Westernized culture or being unfamiliar based on age cohort, regional differences, and language background was the most commonly reported theme (20.1%), followed by tests and stimuli that were considered to be triggering or culturally offensive (17.4%). Among responses that mentioned specific tests, the Boston Naming Test was most frequently reported (43.2%), followed by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Verbal subtests (20.3%), and Story B from the Wechsler Memory Scale-IV Logical Memory subtest (10.1%). CONCLUSIONS Beyond the Boston Naming Test noose item, which was recently replaced, survey respondents identified several other culturally insensitive tests and assessment practices that may negatively impact an examinee's performance and their assessment experience. These results emphasize the need for more research to inform test revisions, updated normative data, and increased consideration for cultural differences to provide more equitable neuropsychological assessment services.
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
识别神经心理学中对文化不敏感的测试、刺激和评估方法:对专业人员和受训人员的调查。
方法 我们在神经心理学和心理学邮件列表中分发了一份调查问卷,要求受访者报告被认为对文化不敏感的测试、刺激和/或评估方法,以及针对哪些人群。共有 100 位参与者提供了回复,并由三位评定者对回复进行编码,以确定常见的报告主题。结果由于测试项目偏向于美国/西方文化,或者由于年龄组、地区差异和语言背景而不熟悉,导致缺乏接触是最常见的报告主题(20.1%),其次是被认为具有触发性或文化攻击性的测试和刺激(17.4%)。在提到具体测验的回答中,波士顿命名测验是最常被提及的(43.2%),其次是韦氏成人智力量表--言语分测验(20.3%)和韦氏记忆量表-IV逻辑记忆分测验中的故事 B(10.1%)。结论除了波士顿命名测验的绳套项目(最近已被替换)外,调查对象还指出了其他一些对文化不敏感的测验和评估方法,它们可能会对受测者的表现和评估体验产生负面影响。这些结果表明,有必要开展更多的研究,为测验的修订、常模数据的更新以及对文化差异的更多考虑提供依据,从而提供更加公平的神经心理评估服务。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Neuropsychological performance labels: do patients understand? Identifying culturally insensitive tests, stimuli, and assessment practices in neuropsychology: A survey of professionals and trainees. Neighborhood resources are associated with neuropsychological outcomes among pediatric brain tumor survivors The impact of MIND diet consumption and physical activity on cognitive functioning in healthy aging older adults Visual tests, touch responses: Computer-based neuropsychological tools
×
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