学前诊所神经心理学领域的因子分析。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2024.2314777
Amy K Heffelfinger, Erin T Kaseda, Daniel D Holliday, Lauren E Miller, Jennifer I Koop
{"title":"学前诊所神经心理学领域的因子分析。","authors":"Amy K Heffelfinger, Erin T Kaseda, Daniel D Holliday, Lauren E Miller, Jennifer I Koop","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The clinical practice of preschool neuropsychology assumes that our assessment tools are measuring underlying neuropsychological functions, and that these functions are negatively impacted by early life neurological injury, disease, and disorder. This study hypothesized that general intellectual capacity and specific cognitive skills, both \"broad\" neuropsychological domains and \"specific\" subdomains within those broader clusters, would be differentiable in a preschool-age clinical population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using neuropsychological data from 580 children (6 and 71 months) seen for a clinical neuropsychological evaluation in the Preschool and Infant Neuropsychological Testing (PINT) Clinic, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted. Results: A one-factor model provided a good fit when considering verbal, nonverbal, and adaptive functions. Consideration of one- versus two-factor solutions for broad neuropsychological domains indicated that a 2-factor solution provided a significantly better fit for the data. Factor 1 was defined by motor, language, and nonverbal reasoning abilities; Factor 2 was defined by inhibitory control and attention. Further consideration of specific neuropsychological functions also supported a 2-factor solution. Factor 1 (\"thinking\") was defined by nonverbal reasoning, receptive language, and expressive language; Factor 2 (\"processing\") was defined by impulse control, inhibitory control, inattention, visual-motor integration, and visuo-constructional abilities. Motor skills cross-loaded onto both factors. Secondary analyses suggest these models provide the best fit for preschool-aged children with > 70 overall intellectual functioning and no comorbid medical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a clinical sample of preschool-age children, neuropsychological assessment data appears to assess a general level of intellectual capacity or functioning. Further differentiation between assessing \"thinking\" (knowledge and reasoning skills) and \"processing\" (cognitive attention and processing of information) can be considered clinically. Next steps include more recent clinical sample replication, consideration of whether neuropsychological profiles are detectable in the preschool-age range and whether the results of early life assessment are predictive of future functioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factor analysis of neuropsychological domains in a preschool clinic.\",\"authors\":\"Amy K Heffelfinger, Erin T Kaseda, Daniel D Holliday, Lauren E Miller, Jennifer I Koop\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2024.2314777\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The clinical practice of preschool neuropsychology assumes that our assessment tools are measuring underlying neuropsychological functions, and that these functions are negatively impacted by early life neurological injury, disease, and disorder. This study hypothesized that general intellectual capacity and specific cognitive skills, both \\\"broad\\\" neuropsychological domains and \\\"specific\\\" subdomains within those broader clusters, would be differentiable in a preschool-age clinical population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using neuropsychological data from 580 children (6 and 71 months) seen for a clinical neuropsychological evaluation in the Preschool and Infant Neuropsychological Testing (PINT) Clinic, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted. Results: A one-factor model provided a good fit when considering verbal, nonverbal, and adaptive functions. Consideration of one- versus two-factor solutions for broad neuropsychological domains indicated that a 2-factor solution provided a significantly better fit for the data. Factor 1 was defined by motor, language, and nonverbal reasoning abilities; Factor 2 was defined by inhibitory control and attention. Further consideration of specific neuropsychological functions also supported a 2-factor solution. Factor 1 (\\\"thinking\\\") was defined by nonverbal reasoning, receptive language, and expressive language; Factor 2 (\\\"processing\\\") was defined by impulse control, inhibitory control, inattention, visual-motor integration, and visuo-constructional abilities. Motor skills cross-loaded onto both factors. Secondary analyses suggest these models provide the best fit for preschool-aged children with > 70 overall intellectual functioning and no comorbid medical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a clinical sample of preschool-age children, neuropsychological assessment data appears to assess a general level of intellectual capacity or functioning. Further differentiation between assessing \\\"thinking\\\" (knowledge and reasoning skills) and \\\"processing\\\" (cognitive attention and processing of information) can be considered clinically. Next steps include more recent clinical sample replication, consideration of whether neuropsychological profiles are detectable in the preschool-age range and whether the results of early life assessment are predictive of future functioning.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314777\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2314777","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:学前神经心理学的临床实践假定,我们的评估工具能够测量潜在的神经心理学功能,而这些功能会受到生命早期神经损伤、疾病和失调的负面影响。本研究假设,在学龄前临床人群中,一般智力能力和特定认知技能,包括 "广义 "神经心理学领域和这些广义领域中的 "特定 "子领域,是可以区分的:使用学龄前和婴幼儿神经心理测试(PINT)诊所中接受临床神经心理评估的 580 名儿童(6 个月和 71 个月)的神经心理数据,进行探索性因子分析(EFA)。结果显示在考虑言语、非言语和适应功能时,单因素模型具有良好的拟合效果。考虑到神经心理领域的单因素和双因素解决方案,双因素解决方案对数据的拟合效果明显更好。因子 1 由运动、语言和非语言推理能力定义;因子 2 由抑制控制和注意力定义。对特定神经心理功能的进一步考虑也支持双因素解决方案。因子 1("思维")由非语言推理、接受性语言和表达性语言定义;因子 2("处理")由冲动控制、抑制控制、注意力不集中、视觉-运动整合和视觉-结构能力定义。运动技能在这两个因子上有交叉负载。二次分析表明,这些模型最适合总体智力功能大于 70 且无合并症的学龄前儿童:结论:在学龄前儿童的临床样本中,神经心理评估数据似乎可以评估智力或功能的总体水平。临床上可以考虑进一步区分评估 "思维"(知识和推理能力)和 "处理"(认知注意力和信息处理能力)。下一步的工作包括:复制更多最新的临床样本,考虑在学龄前阶段是否可以检测到神经心理学特征,以及早期生活评估的结果是否可以预测未来的功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Factor analysis of neuropsychological domains in a preschool clinic.

Introduction: The clinical practice of preschool neuropsychology assumes that our assessment tools are measuring underlying neuropsychological functions, and that these functions are negatively impacted by early life neurological injury, disease, and disorder. This study hypothesized that general intellectual capacity and specific cognitive skills, both "broad" neuropsychological domains and "specific" subdomains within those broader clusters, would be differentiable in a preschool-age clinical population.

Methods: Using neuropsychological data from 580 children (6 and 71 months) seen for a clinical neuropsychological evaluation in the Preschool and Infant Neuropsychological Testing (PINT) Clinic, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were conducted. Results: A one-factor model provided a good fit when considering verbal, nonverbal, and adaptive functions. Consideration of one- versus two-factor solutions for broad neuropsychological domains indicated that a 2-factor solution provided a significantly better fit for the data. Factor 1 was defined by motor, language, and nonverbal reasoning abilities; Factor 2 was defined by inhibitory control and attention. Further consideration of specific neuropsychological functions also supported a 2-factor solution. Factor 1 ("thinking") was defined by nonverbal reasoning, receptive language, and expressive language; Factor 2 ("processing") was defined by impulse control, inhibitory control, inattention, visual-motor integration, and visuo-constructional abilities. Motor skills cross-loaded onto both factors. Secondary analyses suggest these models provide the best fit for preschool-aged children with > 70 overall intellectual functioning and no comorbid medical diagnosis.

Conclusions: In a clinical sample of preschool-age children, neuropsychological assessment data appears to assess a general level of intellectual capacity or functioning. Further differentiation between assessing "thinking" (knowledge and reasoning skills) and "processing" (cognitive attention and processing of information) can be considered clinically. Next steps include more recent clinical sample replication, consideration of whether neuropsychological profiles are detectable in the preschool-age range and whether the results of early life assessment are predictive of future functioning.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Psychological correlates of the good old days bias in mild traumatic brain injury. A tale of two constructs: confirmatory factor analysis of performance and symptom validity tests. Toward a cross-cultural understanding of intraindividual variability metrics. Prospective memory is associated with aspects of disability and quality of life in people with epilepsy. Patterns of prospective memory errors differ in persons with multiple sclerosis.
×
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