Taylor J M, Goldman H, Leavitt J, Kleinmen K M
J Clin Neuropsychol. 1984 Aug;6(3):341-4. doi: 10.1080/01688638408401224.
This study attempted to cross-validate a short form of the Category Test (subtests 1-4) first used by Calsyn, O'Leary, and Chaney (1980). One hundred and sixty-eight subjects were assigned to one of six neurological categories, and Category Test scores predicted (via regression analysis) from performance on the short form were compared with actual scores obtained from the original long form. While there was a high correlation (r = .91) between the two sets of scores, a large number of normal subjects were misclassified as brain-damaged. Additionally, subjects with focal right lesions could not be differentiated from normals either on the basis of error scores predicted from short form performance or the absolute number of errors made on subtests 1-4. These results suggested that shortening the Category Test may limit its applicability with certain populations.
本研究试图对卡尔辛、奥利里和查尼(1980年)首次使用的类别测验简版(子测验1 - 4)进行交叉验证。168名受试者被分配到六个神经学类别中的一个,通过回归分析从简版表现预测的类别测验分数与从原始长版获得的实际分数进行比较。虽然两组分数之间存在高度相关性(r = 0.91),但大量正常受试者被误分类为脑损伤患者。此外,无论是根据简版表现预测的错误分数还是子测验1 - 4上的绝对错误数量,患有右侧局灶性病变的受试者都无法与正常人区分开来。这些结果表明,缩短类别测验可能会限制其在某些人群中的适用性。