PSY FPX 7610 Assessment 2

Introduction

There are several aspects that can be measured by clinical neuropsychologists that allow them to identify the appropriate diagnosis for cognitive impairment. It is crucial that the tools used to measure cognition provide accurate results (Rae-Grant & Parsons, 2014). The psychometric properties are imperative to determine if the battery is adequate for its intended purpose. All neuropsychological batteries are tested for validity; that is, the tests are meant to measure what they are meant to measure. They are also tested for reliability. Each test is paired with other tests such that the results they provide are valid, precise, and can be reproduced if necessary (Cohen et al., 2022).

Clinical neuropsychologists use several batteries to measure cognition. Clinical neuropsychologists prefer to give full batteries, along with some extra tests, in order to address the problem of the patient. Some of the frequently given examinations that are utilized by clinical neuropsychologists include the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (NAB), and the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (HRNB). The tests evaluate cognition in various areas. These tests are usually given by clinical neuropsychologists to find out the level of cognition a patient displays.

PSY FPX 7610 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Technical Quality

RBANS is a 12-subtest test that measures immediate and delayed memory, visuospatial skills, language, and attention. The right group of people to administer this test to are those who are 12-89 years old (Randolph, 2012). The NAB has 36 tests in six modules. The test measures attention, language, spatial ability, memory, and executive function in individuals aged 18-97 years. NAB is one of a kind because the administration is flexible. NAB also includes a screening module to determine if more testing in an area is necessary (Stern & White, 2003).

HRNB is a battery of tests focusing on physical brain function and setting up the effects of brain damage or brain injury. This battery contains ten tests that evaluate motor function, language, auditory attention, executive function, and visuospatial abilities. This test was initially developed on individuals aged 14-50 years. There have been further revisions since its inception that include participants up to 85 years of age. The current paper reviews the validity and reliability of the three batteries to determine if they are adequate tests to evaluate adults aged 50 years and older with a spectrum of cognitive impairment syndromes.

Technical Review Article Summaries for the RBANS

McKay, C., Casey, J. E., Wertheimer, J., & Fictenberg, N. L. (2007). Reliability and validity of the RBANS in a traumatic brain-injured sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2006.11.003

This McKay et al. (2007) study investigated the validity of the RBANS among patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injuries (TBI). The battery produces index scores similar to scores achieved on tests of particular domains, which measures how effective the RBANS is as a general battery. The scores allow clinical neuropsychologists the convenience of avoiding wasted time by utilizing this test to provide scores in various cognitive areas and diagnose various neurological conditions. There is sufficient research to show that the index scores are equal, but there is no research on the test scores. The researchers expected the index scores would show great reliability except for the language and attention scores, and the subtests will provide valid scores like other neuropsychological tests assessing those same domains.

The study used 57 adults with brain injury who were 20 years and older. The researchers administered the RBANS to the participants and correlated their outcomes with other neuropsychological test normative data. The result indicated that the RBANS Total Scale was consistent internally among adults with TBIs (.83). The discovery also confirmed the initial hypothesis of the researcher because language and attention registered a lower consistency among the subtests. Data also supports their second hypothesis since all the subtests produced comparable scores to the scores obtained from other neuropsychology tests that measured the same aspects. The results showed that the RBANS has high convergent validity as a screener specifically for TBIs in adults.

PSY FPX 7610 Assessment 2 Evaluation of Technical Quality

Gontkovsky, S. T., Beatty, W. W., & Mold, J. W. (2004). Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status in a normal, geriatric sample. Clinical Gerontologist, 27(3).

Gontkovsky et al. (2004) assessed the psychometrics and the reliability of RBANS. Older adults in the majority have difficulty with tasks that come from more lengthy batteries; hence, RBANS is an appropriate test for such an individual. The test takes 30 minutes and provides the examiner with total scores in five areas of cognition. Other brief tests cannot screen for some impairments, such as dementia. The authors aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the RBANS with a healthy older sample. The participants were 631 individuals who were between the ages of 64 and 94 years. Testing administration was in the participant’s primary care physician’s office and by an experienced research nurse.

The results obtained indicated that Cronbach’s alpha for total score and domain was .86. Intercorrelation coefficients varied between .25 and .79 with 26% in variance. Internal consistency reliability was established. The score on every test maps to the index scores on the domains, as well as to the total score. Results thus confirm similar findings of researchers testing the RBANS, indicating that the test shows convergent validity.

Technical Review Article Summaries for the NAB

Donders, J., & Levitt, T. (2012). Criterion validity of the neuropsychological assessment battery after traumatic brain injury. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(4), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acs043

Donders and Levitt (2012) conducted a study in an effort to examine the criterion validity for the NAB. There is a great deal of work on the NAB and neuropsychological disorders, but minimal work has been done on validity in the instance of traumatic brain injuries (TBI). The researchers sought to examine the domain sensitivity to TBI. Donders and Levitt reviewed previous research into TBI and concluded that if the NAB were to report valid scores, the mean performance would need to be significantly lower than in healthy individuals of equivalent demographics, with a moderate range effect size, and the score indexes must yield statistically significant negative correlations with coma duration. The authors administered the NAM to 54 adults who were 18 years and older with a TBI. The results showed the mean performance of TBI participants F(3,104) = 14.16, p < .001.