Dunham Kathryn J, Shadi Sarah, Sofko Channing A, Denney Robert L, Calloway Jordan
The School of Professional Psychology at Forest Institute, Springfield, MO 65807, USA
The School of Professional Psychology at Forest Institute, Springfield, MO 65807, USA.
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2014 Nov;29(7):633-41. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acu042. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
The aim of the current study was to compare two embedded measures of effort for the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS). Sensitivity and specificity of the Effort Index (EI) and Effort Scale (ES) were compared in a sample of individuals with genuine memory impairment (MI) and individuals coached to simulate MI. Overall, the EI yielded a sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 0.41, while the ES yielded a sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.81. When those in the MI group were separated by level of impairment, the EI was more specific when RBANS Total Scores were in the average or mildly impaired range, and the ES had greater specificity when RBANS Total Scores were in the severely impaired range. These results suggest that the embedded measure should be selected based on the level of impairment on the RBANS.
本研究的目的是比较用于评估神经心理状态的可重复成套神经心理测验(RBANS)中两种内隐努力测量方法。在真正存在记忆障碍(MI)的个体样本以及被指导模拟记忆障碍的个体样本中,比较了努力指数(EI)和努力量表(ES)的敏感性和特异性。总体而言,EI的敏感性为0.89,特异性为0.41,而ES的敏感性为0.88,特异性为0.81。当MI组中的个体按损伤程度进行区分时,当RBANS总分处于平均或轻度受损范围时,EI的特异性更高;当RBANS总分处于严重受损范围时,ES的特异性更高。这些结果表明,应根据RBANS上的损伤程度来选择内隐测量方法。