Joan E van Horn, Anna van der Schoot, Julia Wilpert, Hessel J Engelbregt, Nico Brand
{"title":"A Pilot Study of the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Dutch Version of the Parametric Go/No-Go Task.","authors":"Joan E van Horn, Anna van der Schoot, Julia Wilpert, Hessel J Engelbregt, Nico Brand","doi":"10.1097/WNN.0000000000000363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The parametric go/no-go (PGNG) task is a computerized task that is designed to measure cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, and working memory. The PGNG task has been shown to measure core executive functions (EFs) in a psychometrically sound, brief, and ecologically valid manner.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To analyze the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the PGNG task in a convenience sample of nonclinical adults.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample consisted of 74 highly educated adults, with an average age of 36 years. Forty-two participants completed test battery A to investigate the task's convergent validity; 36 participants completed test battery B to investigate the task's discriminant validity. The results were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA, Friedman's test, paired-samples t test, and correlation analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Level 3 of the PGNG task places increased demands on sustained attention, response inhibition, and set-shifting. Several moderate correlations between level 3 and a complex EFs measure supported the convergent validity of this level of the PGNG task. The convergent validity of levels 1 and 2 was not supported. No significant correlations were found between PGNG levels and non-EF tests, supporting discriminant validity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study included a rather homogenous sample of highly educated participants, which might explain the convergent validity of level 3 of the Dutch version of the PGNG task. Hence, to overcome these potentially confounding factors, the Dutch version of the PGNG task should be investigated in a larger and more heterogeneous population in terms of age and educational level.</p>","PeriodicalId":50671,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0000000000000363","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The parametric go/no-go (PGNG) task is a computerized task that is designed to measure cognitive flexibility, response inhibition, and working memory. The PGNG task has been shown to measure core executive functions (EFs) in a psychometrically sound, brief, and ecologically valid manner.
Objective: To analyze the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the PGNG task in a convenience sample of nonclinical adults.
Method: The sample consisted of 74 highly educated adults, with an average age of 36 years. Forty-two participants completed test battery A to investigate the task's convergent validity; 36 participants completed test battery B to investigate the task's discriminant validity. The results were analyzed using a repeated-measures ANOVA, Friedman's test, paired-samples t test, and correlation analyses.
Results: Level 3 of the PGNG task places increased demands on sustained attention, response inhibition, and set-shifting. Several moderate correlations between level 3 and a complex EFs measure supported the convergent validity of this level of the PGNG task. The convergent validity of levels 1 and 2 was not supported. No significant correlations were found between PGNG levels and non-EF tests, supporting discriminant validity.
Conclusion: Our study included a rather homogenous sample of highly educated participants, which might explain the convergent validity of level 3 of the Dutch version of the PGNG task. Hence, to overcome these potentially confounding factors, the Dutch version of the PGNG task should be investigated in a larger and more heterogeneous population in terms of age and educational level.
期刊介绍：
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology (CBN) is a forum for advances in the neurologic understanding and possible treatment of human disorders that affect thinking, learning, memory, communication, and behavior. As an incubator for innovations in these fields, CBN helps transform theory into practice. The journal serves clinical research, patient care, education, and professional advancement.
The journal welcomes contributions from neurology, cognitive neuroscience, neuropsychology, neuropsychiatry, and other relevant fields. The editors particularly encourage review articles (including reviews of clinical practice), experimental and observational case reports, instructional articles for interested students and professionals in other fields, and innovative articles that do not fit neatly into any category. Also welcome are therapeutic trials and other experimental and observational studies, brief reports, first-person accounts of neurologic experiences, position papers, hypotheses, opinion papers, commentaries, historical perspectives, and book reviews.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
