Assessing learning potential in elderly stroke patients: The validity of the dynamic Clock Drawing Task in comparison with the dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2023.2171794
Martine Wilbers, Chantal Geusgens, Caroline M van Heugten
{"title":"Assessing learning potential in elderly stroke patients: The validity of the dynamic Clock Drawing Task in comparison with the dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.","authors":"Martine Wilbers, Chantal Geusgens, Caroline M van Heugten","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2023.2171794","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Currently, there is no valid and feasible dynamic test available for assessing learning potential in elderly stroke patients. We designed a dynamic version of the Clock Drawing Task (dCDT) which we compared to the dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (dWCST). The dWCST has shown adequate validity in adult patients with brain injury but has a long administration time. Participants were 47 stroke patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation unit. All participants completed the dCDT, the mean administration time was 7 min. 90.7% of the participants were able to complete the dWCST, the mean administration time was 36 min. The numerical learning potential indices of the dCDT were not significantly correlated. Based on the dCDT, 70.2% of the participants were classified as high achiever, 10.6% as strong learner, 19.2% as poor learner, and none as decliner. The numerical learning potential indices of the dWCST correlated significantly. Based on the dWCST, 5.3% of the participants were classified as high achiever, 42.1% as strong learner, 50% as poor learner, and 2.6% as decliner. The learning potential indices of the dCDT and those of the dWCST were not significantly correlated, indicating poor convergent validity of the dCDT. The results provide no clear support for the use of the dCDT in elderly stroke patients. The dWCST does show adequate validity and feasibility in the elderly stroke population, despite longer administration time. Future research should focus on examining the validity of the dCDT in a larger sample as well as examining the predictive validity of the dWCST.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"384-394"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2023.2171794","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Currently, there is no valid and feasible dynamic test available for assessing learning potential in elderly stroke patients. We designed a dynamic version of the Clock Drawing Task (dCDT) which we compared to the dynamic Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (dWCST). The dWCST has shown adequate validity in adult patients with brain injury but has a long administration time. Participants were 47 stroke patients admitted to a geriatric rehabilitation unit. All participants completed the dCDT, the mean administration time was 7 min. 90.7% of the participants were able to complete the dWCST, the mean administration time was 36 min. The numerical learning potential indices of the dCDT were not significantly correlated. Based on the dCDT, 70.2% of the participants were classified as high achiever, 10.6% as strong learner, 19.2% as poor learner, and none as decliner. The numerical learning potential indices of the dWCST correlated significantly. Based on the dWCST, 5.3% of the participants were classified as high achiever, 42.1% as strong learner, 50% as poor learner, and 2.6% as decliner. The learning potential indices of the dCDT and those of the dWCST were not significantly correlated, indicating poor convergent validity of the dCDT. The results provide no clear support for the use of the dCDT in elderly stroke patients. The dWCST does show adequate validity and feasibility in the elderly stroke population, despite longer administration time. Future research should focus on examining the validity of the dCDT in a larger sample as well as examining the predictive validity of the dWCST.

评估老年中风患者的学习潜力:动态时钟绘图任务与动态威斯康星卡片分类测试的有效性比较。
目前,还没有有效可行的动态测试可用于评估老年中风患者的学习潜能。我们设计了一种动态版时钟绘图任务(dCDT),并将其与动态威斯康星卡片分类测验(dWCST)进行了比较。动态威斯康星卡片分类测验(dWCST)在成年脑损伤患者中已显示出足够的有效性,但施测时间较长。47 名中风患者住进了老年康复科。所有参与者都完成了 dCDT,平均施测时间为 7 分钟。90.7%的参与者能够完成 dWCST,平均施测时间为 36 分钟。dCDT 的数字学习潜能指数没有明显的相关性。根据 dCDT,70.2% 的受试者被归类为成绩优异者,10.6% 被归类为学习能力强者,19.2% 被归类为学习能力差者,没有人被归类为学习能力下降者。dWCST 的数字学习潜能指数具有显著的相关性。根据 dWCST,5.3% 的被试成绩优秀,42.1% 的被试学习能力强,50% 的被试学习能力差,2.6% 的被试学习能力下降。dCDT 的学习潜能指数与 dWCST 的学习潜能指数没有明显的相关性,这表明 dCDT 的收敛效度较差。这些结果没有明确支持在老年脑卒中患者中使用 dCDT。尽管 dWCST 施测时间较长,但在老年卒中人群中确实显示出足够的有效性和可行性。未来的研究应侧重于在更大样本中检验 dCDT 的有效性以及 dWCST 的预测有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
134
期刊介绍: pplied Neuropsychology-Adult publishes clinical neuropsychological articles concerning assessment, brain functioning and neuroimaging, neuropsychological treatment, and rehabilitation in adults. Full-length articles and brief communications are included. Case studies of adult patients carefully assessing the nature, course, or treatment of clinical neuropsychological dysfunctions in the context of scientific literature, are suitable. Review manuscripts addressing critical issues are encouraged. Preference is given to papers of clinical relevance to others in the field. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further considerations are peer reviewed by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is single-blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信