“对象排除法”:4-17岁儿童神经心理评估的年龄标准及诊断价值

Q3 Social Sciences
N. Khokhlov, M. Balashova
{"title":"“对象排除法”:4-17岁儿童神经心理评估的年龄标准及诊断价值","authors":"N. Khokhlov, M. Balashova","doi":"10.26907/esd.17.4.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The method of “Object Exclusion” is often used to assess a person’s ability to generalize and forms part of the pathopsychological and neuropsychological examination of children and adults. Nevertheless, there is no definite consensus as to which ratio of responses, which would reflect different generalization levels, is considered normative for children of different ages. Published data on the neuropsychological validity of this technique is quite inconsistent. The results of the investigation of 482 tentatively healthy children aged between 52 and 215 months (119 ± 43), of whom 316 were boys and 166 were girls, provided the standards of various categories of responses for different ages. Cross-analysis with neuropsychological diagnosis results revealed that the test performance indicators have to do with cognitive development, but the proportion of explained variance is no greater than 10%. Moreover, the neuropsychological validity of the method varies for each age group. Collating the responses from various categories allows predicting no more than 7% of neurocognitive development variability.","PeriodicalId":37225,"journal":{"name":"Education and Self Development","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Method of “Object Exclusion”: Age Standards and Diagnostic Value for Neuropsychological Assessment of Children aged 4-17 years\",\"authors\":\"N. Khokhlov, M. Balashova\",\"doi\":\"10.26907/esd.17.4.13\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The method of “Object Exclusion” is often used to assess a person’s ability to generalize and forms part of the pathopsychological and neuropsychological examination of children and adults. Nevertheless, there is no definite consensus as to which ratio of responses, which would reflect different generalization levels, is considered normative for children of different ages. Published data on the neuropsychological validity of this technique is quite inconsistent. The results of the investigation of 482 tentatively healthy children aged between 52 and 215 months (119 ± 43), of whom 316 were boys and 166 were girls, provided the standards of various categories of responses for different ages. Cross-analysis with neuropsychological diagnosis results revealed that the test performance indicators have to do with cognitive development, but the proportion of explained variance is no greater than 10%. Moreover, the neuropsychological validity of the method varies for each age group. Collating the responses from various categories allows predicting no more than 7% of neurocognitive development variability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Education and Self Development\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Education and Self Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.17.4.13\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and Self Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.17.4.13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“对象排除法”通常用于评估一个人的概括能力,并构成儿童和成人病理心理学和神经心理学检查的一部分。然而,对于反映不同泛化水平的哪种回答比例被认为是不同年龄儿童的规范,并没有明确的共识。关于这种技术的神经心理学有效性的公开数据是相当不一致的。通过对482例52 ~ 215月龄(119±43)名暂定健康儿童的调查,得出了不同年龄段的各类反应标准,其中男孩316例,女孩166例。与神经心理学诊断结果交叉分析发现,测验成绩指标与认知发展有关,但被解释方差的比例不大于10%。此外,该方法的神经心理学有效性因年龄组而异。整理来自不同类别的反应可以预测不超过7%的神经认知发展变异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Method of “Object Exclusion”: Age Standards and Diagnostic Value for Neuropsychological Assessment of Children aged 4-17 years
The method of “Object Exclusion” is often used to assess a person’s ability to generalize and forms part of the pathopsychological and neuropsychological examination of children and adults. Nevertheless, there is no definite consensus as to which ratio of responses, which would reflect different generalization levels, is considered normative for children of different ages. Published data on the neuropsychological validity of this technique is quite inconsistent. The results of the investigation of 482 tentatively healthy children aged between 52 and 215 months (119 ± 43), of whom 316 were boys and 166 were girls, provided the standards of various categories of responses for different ages. Cross-analysis with neuropsychological diagnosis results revealed that the test performance indicators have to do with cognitive development, but the proportion of explained variance is no greater than 10%. Moreover, the neuropsychological validity of the method varies for each age group. Collating the responses from various categories allows predicting no more than 7% of neurocognitive development variability.
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
Education and Self Development
Education and Self Development Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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