The Flynn effect in estimates of premorbid intellectual functioning in an Australian sample

IF 3.6 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Australian Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2022-02-16 DOI:10.1080/00049530.2021.2001297
A. McGrath, Matthew Thomas, N. Sugden, C. Skilbeck
{"title":"The Flynn effect in estimates of premorbid intellectual functioning in an Australian sample","authors":"A. McGrath, Matthew Thomas, N. Sugden, C. Skilbeck","doi":"10.1080/00049530.2021.2001297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective While the Flynn effect is a well-recognised phenomenon impacting tests of cognitive ability, limited research has been conducted into its relevance for tests of premorbid ability. Consequently, we aimed to investigate whether estimated FSIQ scores from four commonly used word reading tasks (the NART, the NART2, the WTAR, and the TOPF) were influenced by the Flynn effect. Method We administered the NART, WTAR, and TOPF to 120 healthy community-dwelling adults. Using these raw scores we calculated estimated FSIQ scores using the predictive models published in the relevant manuals and compared these with scores obtained on the WASI-II. Results We found a linear increase in estimated FSIQ, with the oldest reading task, the NART, returning the highest scores and the most recent, the TOPF, the lowest. The NART, WTAR US, and TOPF US overestimated intellectual ability compared to current functioning measured by the WASI-II. Conclusions Our findings indicated tests of premorbid functioning appear to be subject to the Flynn effect, and clinicians should exercise caution in using older word reading tasks such as the NART. Our results support the need for Australian standardisations of these instruments. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: The Flynn effect is the well-known observation that population intelligence is increasing by 3 IQ points per decade. Word reading tasks reliably and validly estimate premorbid intellectual functioning in patients with neuropsychological impairment. There is some evidence indicating word reading tasks might be impacted by the Flynn effect. What this topic adds: We replicated previous research and found results that were consistent with the Flynn effect in estimating premorbid intellectual functioning across the TOPF, WTAR and NART2 and NART. Our results confirmed older tests such as the NART are likely to significantly overestimate premorbid intellectual functioning and should be used with caution. Differences in predicted FSIQ scores based on UK and US norms point to a need for future Australian standardisations of these tests.","PeriodicalId":8871,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.2001297","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective While the Flynn effect is a well-recognised phenomenon impacting tests of cognitive ability, limited research has been conducted into its relevance for tests of premorbid ability. Consequently, we aimed to investigate whether estimated FSIQ scores from four commonly used word reading tasks (the NART, the NART2, the WTAR, and the TOPF) were influenced by the Flynn effect. Method We administered the NART, WTAR, and TOPF to 120 healthy community-dwelling adults. Using these raw scores we calculated estimated FSIQ scores using the predictive models published in the relevant manuals and compared these with scores obtained on the WASI-II. Results We found a linear increase in estimated FSIQ, with the oldest reading task, the NART, returning the highest scores and the most recent, the TOPF, the lowest. The NART, WTAR US, and TOPF US overestimated intellectual ability compared to current functioning measured by the WASI-II. Conclusions Our findings indicated tests of premorbid functioning appear to be subject to the Flynn effect, and clinicians should exercise caution in using older word reading tasks such as the NART. Our results support the need for Australian standardisations of these instruments. KEY POINTS What is already known about this topic: The Flynn effect is the well-known observation that population intelligence is increasing by 3 IQ points per decade. Word reading tasks reliably and validly estimate premorbid intellectual functioning in patients with neuropsychological impairment. There is some evidence indicating word reading tasks might be impacted by the Flynn effect. What this topic adds: We replicated previous research and found results that were consistent with the Flynn effect in estimating premorbid intellectual functioning across the TOPF, WTAR and NART2 and NART. Our results confirmed older tests such as the NART are likely to significantly overestimate premorbid intellectual functioning and should be used with caution. Differences in predicted FSIQ scores based on UK and US norms point to a need for future Australian standardisations of these tests.
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
澳大利亚样本中病前智力功能评估中的弗林效应
摘要目的虽然弗林效应是影响认知能力测试的一种公认现象,但对其与病前能力测试的相关性研究有限。因此,我们旨在调查四种常用单词阅读任务(NART、NART2、WTAR和TOPF)的FSIQ评分是否受到弗林效应的影响。方法对120名健康的社区居民进行NART、WTAR和TOPF。使用这些原始分数,我们使用相关手册中发布的预测模型计算了估计的FSIQ分数,并将其与WASI-II上获得的分数进行了比较。结果我们发现,估计的FSIQ呈线性增加,最古老的阅读任务NART得分最高,最近的阅读任务TOPF得分最低。与WASI-II测量的当前功能相比,NART、WTAR US和TOPF US高估了智力。结论我们的研究结果表明,病前功能测试似乎受到弗林效应的影响,临床医生在使用较老的单词阅读任务(如NART)时应谨慎。我们的研究结果支持澳大利亚对这些仪器进行标准化的必要性。关键点关于这个话题已经知道的:弗林效应是一个众所周知的观察结果,即人口智力每十年增加3个智商点。单词阅读任务可靠有效地评估神经心理障碍患者的病前智力功能。有证据表明,单词阅读任务可能会受到弗林效应的影响。本主题补充道:我们复制了以前的研究,发现在评估TOPF、WTAR、NART2和NART的病前智力功能时,结果与弗林效应一致。我们的研究结果证实,像NART这样的旧测试可能会显著高估病前的智力功能,应该谨慎使用。基于英国和美国标准的预测FSIQ分数的差异表明,未来澳大利亚需要对这些测试进行标准化。
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
Australian Journal of Psychology
Australian Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Australian Journal of Psychology is the premier scientific journal of the Australian Psychological Society. It covers the entire spectrum of psychological research and receives articles on all topics within the broad scope of the discipline. The journal publishes high quality peer-reviewed articles with reviewers and associate editors providing detailed assistance to authors to reach publication. The journal publishes reports of experimental and survey studies, including reports of qualitative investigations, on pure and applied topics in the field of psychology. Articles on clinical psychology or on the professional concerns of applied psychology should be submitted to our sister journals, Australian Psychologist or Clinical Psychologist. The journal publishes occasional reviews of specific topics, theoretical pieces and commentaries on methodological issues. There are also solicited book reviews and comments Annual special issues devoted to a single topic, and guest edited by a specialist editor, are published. The journal regards itself as international in vision and will accept submissions from psychologists in all countries.
期刊最新文献
Pregnancy complications and their association with postpartum depression symptoms: a retrospective study Compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures during the onset of the pandemic in Australia: investigating the role of trust in federal and state governments and scientists The influence of social comparison on risk decision-making for self and groups in intergroup contexts FoMO, but not self-compassion, moderates the link between social media use and anxiety in adolescence A critical analysis of online social support for young people experiencing chronic pain
×
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