霍尔斯特德类别测试简表的局限性。

J M Taylor, H Goldman, J Leavitt, K M Kleinmen
{"title":"霍尔斯特德类别测试简表的局限性。","authors":"J M Taylor,&nbsp;H Goldman,&nbsp;J Leavitt,&nbsp;K M Kleinmen","doi":"10.1080/01688638408401224","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":79225,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical neuropsychology","volume":"6 3","pages":"341-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01688638408401224","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limitations of the brief form of the Halstead Category Test.\",\"authors\":\"J M Taylor,&nbsp;H Goldman,&nbsp;J Leavitt,&nbsp;K M Kleinmen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01688638408401224\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\"6 3\",\"pages\":\"341-4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1984-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01688638408401224\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638408401224\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01688638408401224","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本研究试图交叉验证Calsyn、O’leary和Chaney(1980)首次使用的一种简短形式的类别测试(子测试1-4)。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,从短形式的表现中预测的类别测试分数与从原始长形式中获得的实际分数进行比较。虽然两组得分之间存在高度相关(r = .91),但大量正常受试者被错误地归类为脑损伤。此外,无论是根据短形式表现预测的错误分数,还是根据子测试1-4的绝对错误数,都无法将右侧局灶性病变受试者与正常人区分。这些结果表明,缩短类别检验可能会限制其对某些人群的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Limitations of the brief form of the Halstead Category Test.

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.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信