NIH 工具箱认知能力测验的测试-重测可靠性和可靠变化。

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-08-24 DOI:10.1093/arclin/acae011
Justin E Karr, Eric O Ingram, Cristina N Pinheiro, Sheliza Ali, Grant L Iverson
{"title":"NIH 工具箱认知能力测验的测试-重测可靠性和可靠变化。","authors":"Justin E Karr, Eric O Ingram, Cristina N Pinheiro, Sheliza Ali, Grant L Iverson","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Researchers and practitioners can detect cognitive improvement or decline within a single examinee by applying a reliable change methodology. This study examined reliable change through test-retest data from the English-language National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) normative sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants included adults (n = 138; age: M ± SD = 54.8 ± 20.0, range: 18-85; 51.4% men; 68.1% White) who completed test-retest assessments about a week apart on five fluid cognition tests, providing raw scores, age-adjusted standard scores (SS), and demographic-adjusted T-scores (T).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Fluid Cognition Composite (SS: ICC = 0.87; T-score: ICC = 0.84) and the five fluid cognition tests had good test-retest reliability (SS: ICC range = 0.66-0.85; T-score: ICC range = 0.64-0.86). The lower and upper bounds of 70%, 80%, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated around change scores, which serve as cutoffs for determining reliable change. Using T-scores, 90% CI, and adjustment for practice effects, 32.3% declined on one or more tests, 9.7% declined on two or more tests, 36.6% improved on one or more tests, and 5.4% improved on two or more tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It was common for participants to show reliable change on at least one test score, but not two or more test scores. Per an 80% CI, test-retest difference scores beyond these cutoffs would indicate reliable change: Dimensional Change Card Sort (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Flanker (SS ≥ 12/T ≥ 8), List Sorting (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Picture Sequence Memory (SS ≥ 19/T ≥ 13), Pattern Comparison (SS ≥ 11/T ≥ 8), and Fluid Cognition Composite (SS ≥ 10/T ≥ 7). The reliable change cutoffs could be applied in research or practice to detect within-person change in fluid cognition at the individual level.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345114/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Test-Retest Reliability and Reliable Change on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.\",\"authors\":\"Justin E Karr, Eric O Ingram, Cristina N Pinheiro, Sheliza Ali, Grant L Iverson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/arclin/acae011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Researchers and practitioners can detect cognitive improvement or decline within a single examinee by applying a reliable change methodology. This study examined reliable change through test-retest data from the English-language National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) normative sample.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants included adults (n = 138; age: M ± SD = 54.8 ± 20.0, range: 18-85; 51.4% men; 68.1% White) who completed test-retest assessments about a week apart on five fluid cognition tests, providing raw scores, age-adjusted standard scores (SS), and demographic-adjusted T-scores (T).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The Fluid Cognition Composite (SS: ICC = 0.87; T-score: ICC = 0.84) and the five fluid cognition tests had good test-retest reliability (SS: ICC range = 0.66-0.85; T-score: ICC range = 0.64-0.86). The lower and upper bounds of 70%, 80%, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated around change scores, which serve as cutoffs for determining reliable change. Using T-scores, 90% CI, and adjustment for practice effects, 32.3% declined on one or more tests, 9.7% declined on two or more tests, 36.6% improved on one or more tests, and 5.4% improved on two or more tests.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It was common for participants to show reliable change on at least one test score, but not two or more test scores. Per an 80% CI, test-retest difference scores beyond these cutoffs would indicate reliable change: Dimensional Change Card Sort (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Flanker (SS ≥ 12/T ≥ 8), List Sorting (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Picture Sequence Memory (SS ≥ 19/T ≥ 13), Pattern Comparison (SS ≥ 11/T ≥ 8), and Fluid Cognition Composite (SS ≥ 10/T ≥ 7). The reliable change cutoffs could be applied in research or practice to detect within-person change in fluid cognition at the individual level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345114/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae011\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究人员和从业人员可以通过应用可靠的变化方法来检测单个受试者认知能力的改善或下降。本研究通过英文版美国国立卫生研究院工具箱认知测验(NIHTB-CB)常模样本的重测数据,对可靠的变化进行了研究:参与者包括成年人(n = 138;年龄:M ± SD = 54.8 ± 20.0,范围:18-85;51.4%为男性;68.1%为白人),他们在相隔一周左右的时间完成了五项流体认知测试的重测评估,提供了原始分数、年龄调整后的标准分数(SS)和人口统计学调整后的T分数(T):流体认知综合评分(SS:ICC=0.87;T-score:ICC=0.84)和五项流体认知测试具有良好的重测可靠性(SS:ICC范围=0.66-0.85;T-score:ICC范围=0.64-0.86)。围绕变化分数计算了 70%、80% 和 90% 置信区间 (CI) 的下限和上限,作为确定可靠变化的临界值。使用 T 分数、90% 置信区间和练习效果调整,32.3% 的人在一次或多次测试中成绩下降,9.7% 的人在两次或多次测试中成绩下降,36.6% 的人在一次或多次测试中成绩提高,5.4% 的人在两次或多次测试中成绩提高:结论:参与者通常至少在一项测试得分上表现出可靠的变化,但不会在两项或多项测试得分上表现出可靠的变化。根据 80% 的 CI,测试-复测差异分数超过这些临界值将表明有可靠的变化:维度变化卡片分类(SS≥14/T ≥10)、侧翼(SS≥12/T ≥8)、列表分类(SS≥14/T ≥10)、图片序列记忆(SS≥19/T ≥13)、模式比较(SS≥11/T ≥8)和流体认知综合(SS≥10/T ≥7)。可靠的变化临界值可应用于研究或实践,以检测个人水平上的人内流体认知变化。
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
Test-Retest Reliability and Reliable Change on the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery.

Objective: Researchers and practitioners can detect cognitive improvement or decline within a single examinee by applying a reliable change methodology. This study examined reliable change through test-retest data from the English-language National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) normative sample.

Method: Participants included adults (n = 138; age: M ± SD = 54.8 ± 20.0, range: 18-85; 51.4% men; 68.1% White) who completed test-retest assessments about a week apart on five fluid cognition tests, providing raw scores, age-adjusted standard scores (SS), and demographic-adjusted T-scores (T).

Results: The Fluid Cognition Composite (SS: ICC = 0.87; T-score: ICC = 0.84) and the five fluid cognition tests had good test-retest reliability (SS: ICC range = 0.66-0.85; T-score: ICC range = 0.64-0.86). The lower and upper bounds of 70%, 80%, and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated around change scores, which serve as cutoffs for determining reliable change. Using T-scores, 90% CI, and adjustment for practice effects, 32.3% declined on one or more tests, 9.7% declined on two or more tests, 36.6% improved on one or more tests, and 5.4% improved on two or more tests.

Conclusions: It was common for participants to show reliable change on at least one test score, but not two or more test scores. Per an 80% CI, test-retest difference scores beyond these cutoffs would indicate reliable change: Dimensional Change Card Sort (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Flanker (SS ≥ 12/T ≥ 8), List Sorting (SS ≥ 14/T ≥ 10), Picture Sequence Memory (SS ≥ 19/T ≥ 13), Pattern Comparison (SS ≥ 11/T ≥ 8), and Fluid Cognition Composite (SS ≥ 10/T ≥ 7). The reliable change cutoffs could be applied in research or practice to detect within-person change in fluid cognition at the individual level.

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
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Executive Functions are Independently Associated with Cognitive Dispersion in HIV Disease. Accuracy of Reaction Time Measurement on Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metric UltraMobile. Examining Food-Specific and General Inhibitory Control and Working Memory as Moderators of Relations Between Emotion Regulation Difficulties and Eating Pathology in Adults With Overweight/Obesity: A Preregistered, Cross-Sectional Study. Task-Based Attentional Control: The Role of Anxiety and Age. A Systematic Review to Explore a Neuropsychological Profile that Predates Anorexia Nervosa.
×
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