Ralph H. Johnson Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 109 Bee Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29407, USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2010 Aug;24(6):1064-77. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2010.486009. Epub 2010 Jun 9.
The clinical utility of embedded indices of effort in the RBANS was examined in a geriatric sample. Patients were classified as providing suspect effort (n = 45) or probable good effort (n = 258) using the TOMM and clinical consensus. Following the methodology of Silverberg and colleagues (2007), selected individual subtests and a summary Effort Index were evaluated. Setting specificity at approximately 85% yielded cut-offs of <15 on List Recognition, <8 on Digit Span, and >3 on the Effort Index. The modest sensitivity (51.1-64.4%) suggests that the indices should be used in conjunction with additional effort measures. In addition, the RBANS Picture Naming subtest was examined and showed modest sensitivity to detect suboptimal effort, but did not show notable incremental validity for detecting suboptimal effort beyond the Effort Index.
在老年患者样本中,考察了 RBANS 中努力程度嵌入指标的临床实用性。使用 TOMM 和临床共识,将患者分为可疑努力(n=45)或可能良好努力(n=258)。按照 Silverberg 等人(2007 年)的方法,评估了选定的个体子测试和综合努力指数。在设定特异性约为 85%的情况下,List Recognition<15、Digit Span<8 和 Effort Index>3 的截断值。适度的敏感性(51.1-64.4%)表明,这些指标应与其他努力测量指标结合使用。此外,还检查了 RBANS 图片命名子测试,结果表明其对检测不佳的努力有一定的敏感性,但在检测不佳的努力方面,除了 Effort Index 之外,没有明显的增量有效性。