Cross-cultural comparison of performance on the multicultural neuropsychological scale between participants from Argentina and the United States of America.

IF 1.5 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2025-03-13 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2025.2473944
Alberto Luis Fernandez, Bernice Marcopulos, David Hardy
{"title":"Cross-cultural comparison of performance on the multicultural neuropsychological scale between participants from Argentina and the United States of America.","authors":"Alberto Luis Fernandez, Bernice Marcopulos, David Hardy","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2025.2473944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In a previous article the performance of two samples from Argentina and the USA on the Multicultural Neuropsychological Scale (MUNS) was compared. Although the results indicated no significant differences between them, the samples were rather small. In this article two larger samples from each country including two different locations in the USA were included. Moreover, additional psychometric cross-cultural analyses are presented.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Age and education-matched Argentinian (n = 80) and American (n = 50) samples of healthy adults were administered the MUNS. Argentinians were administered the Spanish version of the MUNS while North Americans were administered the English version.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results showed that t-tests revealed no significant differences between the samples across all subtests scores. Most correlations between demographic variables and subtest scores were non-significant across samples, with the exception of two weak correlations in the Argentinian sample. For both groups, scores were not significantly different between the male and female participants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results from this study confirm previous findings obtained with smaller samples suggesting some evidence of scalar equivalence across both versions of the MUNS.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","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/10.1080/23279095.2025.2473944","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: In a previous article the performance of two samples from Argentina and the USA on the Multicultural Neuropsychological Scale (MUNS) was compared. Although the results indicated no significant differences between them, the samples were rather small. In this article two larger samples from each country including two different locations in the USA were included. Moreover, additional psychometric cross-cultural analyses are presented.

Methods: Age and education-matched Argentinian (n = 80) and American (n = 50) samples of healthy adults were administered the MUNS. Argentinians were administered the Spanish version of the MUNS while North Americans were administered the English version.

Results: Results showed that t-tests revealed no significant differences between the samples across all subtests scores. Most correlations between demographic variables and subtest scores were non-significant across samples, with the exception of two weak correlations in the Argentinian sample. For both groups, scores were not significantly different between the male and female participants.

Conclusions: The results from this study confirm previous findings obtained with smaller samples suggesting some evidence of scalar equivalence across both versions of the MUNS.

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
阿根廷和美国参与者在多元文化神经心理量表上表现的跨文化比较。
目的:在之前的一篇文章中,比较了来自阿根廷和美国的两个样本在多元文化神经心理量表(MUNS)上的表现。虽然结果显示他们之间没有显著差异,但样本相当小。在这篇文章中,包括美国两个不同地点在内的每个国家的两个较大的样本被包括在内。此外,还提出了额外的心理测量跨文化分析。方法:对年龄和受教育程度相匹配的阿根廷(80例)和美国(50例)健康成人进行MUNS治疗。阿根廷人使用西班牙语版本的MUNS,而北美人使用英语版本。结果:结果显示,t检验显示样本之间在所有子测试分数上没有显着差异。除了阿根廷样本中的两个弱相关性外,人口统计学变量和子测试分数之间的大多数相关性在样本中都不显著。对于这两组,得分在男性和女性参与者之间没有显著差异。结论:本研究的结果证实了先前在较小样本中获得的发现,表明两个版本的MUNS之间存在标量等效的一些证据。
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
The long-term memory sign: A clinical marker of functional cognitive disorders. Maximizing fidelity of neuropsychology assessments in fully remote studies. The effects of transcranial direct current Stimulation on Working memory and reading skills of adults with Dyslexia: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the Stroop Color and Word test in patients with stroke. Theory of mind training and its effects on executive functions: Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials in the adults with mild intellectual disabilities.
×
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:604180095
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