威斯康星卡片分类测验-64作为一种嵌入式测量方法识别轻度脑外伤诉讼当事人不可信的神经认知表现的能力。

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
George K Henry
{"title":"威斯康星卡片分类测验-64作为一种嵌入式测量方法识别轻度脑外伤诉讼当事人不可信的神经认知表现的能力。","authors":"George K Henry","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2024.2348012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the ability of selective measures on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 (WCST-64) to predict noncredible neurocognitive dysfunction in a large sample of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants included 114 adults who underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological examination. Criterion groups were formed based upon their performance on stand-alone measures of cognitive performance validity (PVT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants failing PVTs performed worse across all WCST-64 dependent variables of interest compared to participants who passed PVTs. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that only categories completed was a significant predictors of PVT status. Multivariate logistic regression did not add to classification accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consideration of noncredible executive functioning may be warranted in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants who complete ≤ 1 category on the WCST-64.</p>","PeriodicalId":51308,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ability of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test-64 as an embedded measure to identify noncredible neurocognitive performance in mild traumatic brain injury litigants.\",\"authors\":\"George K Henry\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2024.2348012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the ability of selective measures on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 (WCST-64) to predict noncredible neurocognitive dysfunction in a large sample of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Participants included 114 adults who underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological examination. Criterion groups were formed based upon their performance on stand-alone measures of cognitive performance validity (PVT).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants failing PVTs performed worse across all WCST-64 dependent variables of interest compared to participants who passed PVTs. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that only categories completed was a significant predictors of PVT status. Multivariate logistic regression did not add to classification accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Consideration of noncredible executive functioning may be warranted in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants who complete ≤ 1 category on the WCST-64.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"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/10.1080/23279095.2024.2348012\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2024.2348012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的研究威斯康星卡片分类测验-64(WCST-64)的选择性测量方法预测轻度脑外伤(mTBI)诉讼当事人非可信神经认知功能障碍的能力:参与者包括 114 名接受过全面神经心理学检查的成年人。根据他们在认知表现有效性独立测量(PVT)中的表现将他们分为标准组:与通过 PVT 的参与者相比,未通过 PVT 的参与者在所有 WCST-64 相关因变量上的表现都较差。接收操作曲线分析表明,只有完成的类别才能显著预测 PVT 状态。多变量逻辑回归并没有提高分类的准确性:结论:对于在WCST-64中完成≤1个类别的轻度脑损伤(mTBI)诉讼当事人,可能需要考虑不可置信的执行功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ability of the Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test-64 as an embedded measure to identify noncredible neurocognitive performance in mild traumatic brain injury litigants.

Objective: To investigate the ability of selective measures on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 (WCST-64) to predict noncredible neurocognitive dysfunction in a large sample of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants.

Method: Participants included 114 adults who underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological examination. Criterion groups were formed based upon their performance on stand-alone measures of cognitive performance validity (PVT).

Results: Participants failing PVTs performed worse across all WCST-64 dependent variables of interest compared to participants who passed PVTs. Receiver operating curve analysis revealed that only categories completed was a significant predictors of PVT status. Multivariate logistic regression did not add to classification accuracy.

Conclusion: Consideration of noncredible executive functioning may be warranted in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) litigants who complete ≤ 1 category on the WCST-64.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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