Stambrook M, Hawryluk G A, Martin D G
Int J Neurosci. 1987 Jul;35(1-2):73-88. doi: 10.3109/00207458708987112.
This investigation examined the ability of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) to lateralize brain damage, since substantial statistical and methodological issues have been raised regarding the initial LNNB lateralization validation study. A comparison was then made of the ability of the LNNB and the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery to lateralize brain damage. Both neuropsychological batteries were administered to 30 predominantly left- or right-hemisphere-damaged subjects (15 in each group) with discriminant analysis classification procedures demonstrating similar, above chance, accuracy in lateralizing cerebral dysfunction. Cross-validation of objective clinical rules designed to aid in LNNB test interpretation resulted in classification of brain damage and lateralization at levels below reported values from the test developer's laboratory. The limited role such simplistic rules have in assessment is discussed, as is the need to evaluate dimensions of test usefulness other than those related to gross diagnostic decisions (e.g., presence or laterality of brain damage) in determining the instrument of choice for clinical neuropsychological practice. More research is recommended to fully define the limits of the clinical utility of the LNNB.
鉴于最初的鲁利亚-内布拉斯加神经心理成套测验（LNNB）侧化验证研究引发了大量统计学和方法学问题，本调查研究了LNNB对脑损伤进行侧化的能力。随后比较了LNNB和霍尔斯特德-雷坦神经心理测验成套工具对脑损伤进行侧化的能力。两种神经心理成套工具均施测于30名主要为左半球或右半球损伤的受试者（每组15名），判别分析分类程序显示，在对脑功能障碍进行侧化时，二者的准确率相似且高于随机水平。旨在辅助LNNB测验解释的客观临床规则的交叉验证，其脑损伤分类和侧化水平低于测验开发者实验室报告的值。讨论了这类简单规则在评估中的有限作用，以及在确定临床神经心理学实践的首选工具时，除了与总体诊断决策相关的维度（如脑损伤的存在或侧别）之外，评估测验有用性其他维度的必要性。建议开展更多研究以全面界定LNNB临床效用的限度。
