Textbook Notes (381,224)
CA (168,409)
UTSC (19,325)
Psychology (10,054)
PSYC31H3 (106)
Chapter 6

Test 2: Chapter 6

16 Pages
182 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC31H3
Professor
Konstantine Zakzanis

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 16 pages of the document.
Chapter 6: Neuropsychological Examination
Background Data
- examiner take into account patient variables when evaluating test performance: sensory and motor status, alertness
cycles, medication regimen, etc.
- motivation to reach a goal is also important
- appreciate patients current medical and neurological status can help guide examiners search for pattern of NP deficits
Behavioral Observations
- naturalistic observations useful info about how patient functions outside structured examination setting
- value of naturalistic observations may be most evident when examination findings alone lead to conclusions that patients
are more or less capable than they actually areoccur when examiner confounds observed performance with ability
- testing: differs from other forms of psychological data gathering – elicits behavior samples in standardized, replicable
and more or less artificial and restrictive situation
- strengths: sameness of test situation for each subject, sameness enables examiner to compare behavior samples btw
individuals, over time
- weakness: limited to behaviors occasioned by test situation – may lack ecological validity, predictive validity
- apply examination findings to problemsexapolate from limited set of observations to patients behavior in real life
situationscommon feature since impossible to observe subject in every problem area
- exapolations likely to be accurate as the observations are pertinent, precise and comprehensive, situations similar and
generalizations apt
Quantitative and Qualitative Data
- each of these classes of data can constitute a self- sufficient data basetwo different approaches to NP assessment
- actuarial system by Ralph Reitan (quantitative method)data base is in numerical, computer processed form
- other extreme, clinical approach built upon detailed observations without objective standardization (qualitative)
- together, provide observational frames of reference and techniques for taking into account, documenting, and
communicating complexity, variability, subtleties of patient behavior
- several studies suggest reliance on actuarial evaluation provides best approach to clinical diagnosisinconsistently
supported
- actuarial predictions not more accurate than clinical ones because (1) only small number of probable outcomes, (2)
prediction variables be known and (3) the data from which the formula was derived be relevant to the questions asked
- most assessments not undertaken for diagnostic purposes but to describe patients NP status; even for diagnostic
purposes, more likely to concern diagnostic discrimination considering broad range of disorders (possibility of more than
one condition), diagnosis involves variables unique to individual
- actuarial judgmentsexaminers not presented with real patients to have live interaction
www.notesolution.com
Quantitative Data
- scores summary statements about observed behavior
- scores obtained for any set of behavior sample that can be categorized according to some principle
- scorer evaluates each behavior sample to see how well it fits a predetermined category and then gives it a place on
numerical scale
- commonly used scaletwo points, good”/ pass and poor/ fall; three points, add middlefair
- occassionaly, test makers incorporate correction for guessing into scoring system, final score not just simple summation
- final test score may misrepresent behavior under examination: (1) based on only one narrowly defined aspect of set of
behavior samples, (2) two or more steps removed from original behavior, global “aggregate” or full scale” scores
calculated by summing or averaging set of test scores are three to four steps removed from behavior they represent
- index scores based on various combinations of scores on two or more tests suffer from same problems as any other
summed scoretoo obscure the data
- completely different behaviorsi.e. writing skills nad visual reaction time can be compared on single numerical scale
Test scores
- variety of forms; rarely test maker use a RAW score (simple sum of correct answers or minus incorrect ones)
- different kinds of scales provide more or less standards for comparing any one score with the scores of the
standardization population
- most widely used scale based on the standard score
- treatment test scores in NP assessment complex – more complex, test scores can come from amny different sources
- within batteries, scores for each of the individual tests are on the same scale and standardized on the same population so
that test scores can be compared directly
- on the other hand, no single test battery provides all the info needed for adequate assessment of most patients presenting
NP questions
- techniques employed in assessment of different aspects of cognitive functioning – developed at different times, places,
populations, ability and maturity levels, with different scoring and classification systems
- taken together, they are unsystemized aggregate of more or less standardizaed tests, experimental techniques and
observational aidsuseful in demonstrating deficits or disturbances in some cognitive function or activity
- scores not directly comparable with one another
- make comparisons necessary evaluating impairment, disparate test scores must be convertible into one scale with
identical unitsscale can serve as test users lingua francapermitting direct comparison btw many different kinds of
measurements
- scale most meaningful statistically and that probably serves intermediary function btw different tests best is one derived
from normal probability curve and based on standard deviation unit
www.notesolution.com
- SD units describe known proportions of normal probability curve
- practical applications for comparing and evaluating psychological data in that the position of any test score on SD unit
scale defines proportion of people taking the test who will obtain scores above and below the given score
- score based on stadnadr deviation standard score can be estimated from a percentilemost commonly used
nonstandard score in adult testing
- likelihood that two numerically different scores are significantly different can be estimated from their relative position on
standard deviation unit scale
- in general, differences of two SD or more may be considered significant, whereas differences of one to two SD suggest a
trend
Reporting Scores
- practice of reporting test performances in terms of scores can be confusing and misleading – esp since recipients are
teachers, guidance counselors, lawyers who lack training in psychometrics
- impt source of faulty communication is variability in size of assigned SD (to percentile)
- measurement error – do not realize two different numbers need not necessarily stand for different quantities but may be
chance variations in the measurement of the same quantity
- tendency in school system and culture to reify test scorespredominant frame of reference for evaluating people
generally resulted in arbitrary and rigid sorting of children into different parts of classroom, into different ability level
classes; IQ level equate to social worth and class
- to avoid difficulties in test score reporting – write about test performances in terms of commonly accepted classification
of ability levels
- each ability level represents statistically defined range of scores – both percentile score and standard score can be
classified as ability level
- percent and percentile not interchangeable; percent (percent correct) refers to difficulty on items/ incorrect whereas
percentile (rank) refers to position of score in distribution of scores (i.e. getting 50% [half correct, half incorrect] on test vs
50th percentile [always middle score/ median])
- converting scores to ability levels enables examiner to report clusters of scores normal variation of scores around single
ability level
LimitationsQuantitative Data
- interpreting test score – keep in mind artificial and abstract nature
- mistake to equate score with behavior it supposed to represent
- to be NP meaningful, test score should represent few kinds of behavior or dimensions of cognitive functions as possible
simpler test task, clearer meaning of score evaluations
- difficult to know just what functions contribute to score obtained on a complex, multidimensional test task without
appropriate evaluation based on search for commonalities in patients performances on different tests, background, etc.
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Chapter 6: Neuropsychological Examination Background Data - examiner take into account patient variables when evaluating test performance: sensory and motor status, alertness cycles, medication regimen, etc. - motivation to reach a goal is also important - appreciate patients current medical and neurological status can help guide examiners search for pattern of NP deficits Behavioral Observations - naturalistic observations useful info about how patient functions outside structured examination setting - value of naturalistic observations may be most evident when examination findings alone lead to conclusions that patients are more or less capable than they actually are occur when examiner confounds observed performance with ability - testing: differs from other forms of psychological data gathering elicits behavior samples in standardized, replicable and more or less artificial and restrictive situation - strengths: sameness of test situation for each subject, sameness enables examiner to compare behavior samples btw individuals, over time - weakness: limited to behaviors occasioned by test situation may lack ecological validity, predictive validity - apply examination findings to problems exapolate from limited set of observations to patients behavior in real life situations common feature since impossible to observe subject in every problem area - exapolations likely to be accurate as the observations are pertinent, precise and comprehensive , situations similar and generalizations apt Quantitative and Qualitative Data - each of these classes of data can constitute a self- sufficient data base two different approaches to NP assessment - actuarial system by Ralph Reitan (quantitative method) data base is in numerical, computer processed form - other extreme, clinical approach built upon detailed observations without objective standardization (qualitative) - together, provide observational frames of reference and techniques for taking into account, documenting, and communicating complexity, variability, subtleties of patient behavior - several studies suggest reliance on actuarial evaluation provides best approach to clinical diagnosis inconsistently supported - actuarial predictions not more accurate than clinical ones because (1) only small number of probable outcomes, (2) prediction variables be known and (3) the data from which the formula was derived be relevant to the questions asked - most assessments not undertaken for diagnostic purposes but to describe patients NP status; even for diagnostic purposes, more likely to concern diagnostic discrimination considering broad range of disorders (possibility of more than one condition), diagnosis involves variables unique to individual - actuarial judgments examiners not presented with real patients to have live interaction www.notesolution.comQuantitative Data - scores summary statements about observed behavior - scores obtained for any set of behavior sample that can be categorized according to some principle - scorer evaluates each behavior sample to see how well it fits a predetermined category and then gives it a place on numerical scale - commonly used scale two points, good pass and poor fall; three points, add middle fair - occassionaly, test makers incorporate correction for guessing into scoring system, final score not just simple summation - final test score may misrepresent behavior under examination: (1) based on only one narrowly defined aspect of set of behavior samples, (2) two or more steps removed from original behavior, global aggregate or full scale scores calculated by summing or averaging set of test scores are three to four steps removed from behavior they represent - index scores based on various combinations of scores on two or more tests suffer from same problems as any other summed score too obscure the data - completely different behaviors i.e. writing skills nad visual reaction time can be compared on single numerical scale Test scores - variety of forms; rarely test maker use a RAW score (simple sum of correct answers or minus incorrect ones) - different kinds of scales provide more or less standards for comparing any one score with the scores of the standardization population - most widely used scale based on the standard score - treatment test scores in NP assessment complex more complex, test scores can come from amny different sources - within batteries, scores for each of the individual tests are on the same scale and standardized on the same population so that test scores can be compared directly - on the other hand, no single test battery provides all the info needed for adequate assessment of most patients presenting NP questions - techniques employed in assessment of different aspects of cognitive functioning developed at different times, places, populations, ability and maturity levels, with different scoring and classification systems - taken together, they are unsystemized aggregate of more or less standardizaed tests, experimental techniques and observational aids useful in demonstrating deficits or disturbances in some cognitive function or activity - scores not directly comparable with one another - make comparisons necessary evaluating impairment, disparate test scores must be convertible into one scale with identical units scale can serve as test users lingua franca permitting direct comparison btw many different kinds of measurements - scale most meaningful statistically and that probably serves intermediary function btw different tests best is one derived from normal probability curve and based on standard deviation unit www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit