传统神经心理评估对轻度脑外伤的误解。二:测试开发、研究设计、统计和心理测量问题的局限性。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES
Brain injury Pub Date : 2024-11-09 Epub Date: 2024-07-27 DOI:10.1080/02699052.2024.2376261
Erin D Bigler, Steven Allder, Jeff Victoroff
{"title":"传统神经心理评估对轻度脑外伤的误解。二:测试开发、研究设计、统计和心理测量问题的局限性。","authors":"Erin D Bigler, Steven Allder, Jeff Victoroff","doi":"10.1080/02699052.2024.2376261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>This is Part II of a four-part opinion review on traditional neuropsychological assessment methods and findings associated with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This Part II review focuses on historical, psychometric and statistical issues involving traditional neuropsychological methods that have been used in neuropsychological outcome studies of mTBI, but demonstrates the critical limitations of traditional methods.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>This is an opinion review.</p><p><strong>Methods and procedures: </strong>Traditional neuropsychological tests are dated and lack specificity in evaluating such a heterogenous and complex injury as occurs with mTBI.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and results: </strong>In this review, we demonstrate traditional neuropsychological methods were never developed as standalone measures for detecting subtle changes in neurocognitive or neurobehavioral functioning and likewise, never designed to address the multifaceted issues related to underlying mTBI neuropathology symptom burden from having sustained a concussive brain injury.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For neuropsychological assessment to continue to contribute to clinical practice and outcome literature involving mTBI, major innovative changes are needed that will likely require technological advances of novel assessment techniques more specifically directed to evaluating the mTBI patient. These will be discussed in Part IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":9082,"journal":{"name":"Brain injury","volume":" ","pages":"1053-1074"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What traditional neuropsychological assessment got wrong about mild traumatic brain injury. II: limitations in test development, research design, statistical and psychometric issues.\",\"authors\":\"Erin D Bigler, Steven Allder, Jeff Victoroff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02699052.2024.2376261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Primary objective: </strong>This is Part II of a four-part opinion review on traditional neuropsychological assessment methods and findings associated with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This Part II review focuses on historical, psychometric and statistical issues involving traditional neuropsychological methods that have been used in neuropsychological outcome studies of mTBI, but demonstrates the critical limitations of traditional methods.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>This is an opinion review.</p><p><strong>Methods and procedures: </strong>Traditional neuropsychological tests are dated and lack specificity in evaluating such a heterogenous and complex injury as occurs with mTBI.</p><p><strong>Main outcome and results: </strong>In this review, we demonstrate traditional neuropsychological methods were never developed as standalone measures for detecting subtle changes in neurocognitive or neurobehavioral functioning and likewise, never designed to address the multifaceted issues related to underlying mTBI neuropathology symptom burden from having sustained a concussive brain injury.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For neuropsychological assessment to continue to contribute to clinical practice and outcome literature involving mTBI, major innovative changes are needed that will likely require technological advances of novel assessment techniques more specifically directed to evaluating the mTBI patient. These will be discussed in Part IV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brain injury\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1053-1074\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brain injury\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2024.2376261\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain injury","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2024.2376261","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

主要目的:本文是关于传统神经心理学评估方法和轻度创伤性脑损伤(mTBI)相关研究结果的四部分观点综述的第二部分。本综述的第二部分侧重于传统神经心理学方法的历史、心理测量学和统计学问题,这些方法已被用于轻度脑损伤(mTBI)的神经心理学结果研究,但也表明了传统方法的关键局限性:研究设计:这是一篇观点综述:研究设计:这是一篇观点综述。方法和程序:传统的神经心理学测试已经过时,在评估像 mTBI 这样的异质性复杂损伤时缺乏特异性:在这篇综述中,我们证明了传统的神经心理学方法从未被开发为检测神经认知或神经行为功能细微变化的独立测量方法,同样,也从未被设计用于解决与脑震荡性损伤后潜在的 mTBI 神经病理学症状负担相关的多方面问题:要想使神经心理评估继续为涉及 mTBI 的临床实践和结果文献做出贡献,就需要进行重大的创新性变革,这很可能需要新评估技术的技术进步,这些技术更专门用于评估 mTBI 患者。这些将在第四部分进行讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What traditional neuropsychological assessment got wrong about mild traumatic brain injury. II: limitations in test development, research design, statistical and psychometric issues.

Primary objective: This is Part II of a four-part opinion review on traditional neuropsychological assessment methods and findings associated with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). This Part II review focuses on historical, psychometric and statistical issues involving traditional neuropsychological methods that have been used in neuropsychological outcome studies of mTBI, but demonstrates the critical limitations of traditional methods.

Research design: This is an opinion review.

Methods and procedures: Traditional neuropsychological tests are dated and lack specificity in evaluating such a heterogenous and complex injury as occurs with mTBI.

Main outcome and results: In this review, we demonstrate traditional neuropsychological methods were never developed as standalone measures for detecting subtle changes in neurocognitive or neurobehavioral functioning and likewise, never designed to address the multifaceted issues related to underlying mTBI neuropathology symptom burden from having sustained a concussive brain injury.

Conclusions: For neuropsychological assessment to continue to contribute to clinical practice and outcome literature involving mTBI, major innovative changes are needed that will likely require technological advances of novel assessment techniques more specifically directed to evaluating the mTBI patient. These will be discussed in Part IV.

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
Brain injury
Brain injury 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.30%
发文量
148
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Brain Injury publishes critical information relating to research and clinical practice, adult and pediatric populations. The journal covers a full range of relevant topics relating to clinical, translational, and basic science research. Manuscripts address emergency and acute medical care, acute and post-acute rehabilitation, family and vocational issues, and long-term supports. Coverage includes assessment and interventions for functional, communication, neurological and psychological disorders.
×
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