• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Trail Making Test: Comparison of Paper-and-Pencil Version with Electronic Version.
【24h】

Trail Making Test: Comparison of Paper-and-Pencil Version with Electronic Version.

机译：试行测试：纸笔版本与电子版本的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is a commonly used neuropsychological instrument that quickly assesses several cognitive constructs. Parker-O'Brien and Associates developed an iPad application of the TMT using the same norms as the Halstead-Reitan version (PAP-TMT). This study assessed the test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the iPad-TMT in a sample of 77 intellectually healthy adults. Reliability was assessed by Pearson product-moment correlation and by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), while validity was assessed by MANOVA. Results indicate that Part A of the iPad-TMT was unable to demonstrate adequate test-retest reliability over one week (r = .15 - .70); however, Part B demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability in the majority of groups (r = .33 - .80). Conversely, Part A of the iPad-TMT demonstrated adequate concurrent validity (p > .05), while Part B did not (p < .001); however, the validity of Part A has little meaning in this context, given its lack of reliability. Interestingly, results indicated that handedness had a significant effect on performance, with left-handers performing slower on iPad-TMT Part A ( p < .05) and PAP-TMT Part B (p < .05). With these findings, the norms for the TMT should not be used for the iPad version and new norms should be established for the iPad-TMT. Additionally, the role of handedness in TMT performance should be assessed. Clinicians should use caution when using computerized versions of previously paper-and-pencil based tests, given these recent findings.
机译：追踪测试（TMT）是一种常用的神经心理学工具，可以快速评估几种认知结构。 Parker-O'Brien和Associates使用与Halstead-Reitan版本（PAP-TMT）相同的规范开发了TMT的iPad应用程序。这项研究评估了77名智力健康成年人中iPad-TMT的重测信度和并发有效性。可靠性通过皮尔逊乘积矩相关性和组内相关系数（ICC）进行评估，而有效性通过MANOVA进行评估。结果表明，iPad-TMT的A部分在一周内无法证明足够的重测可靠性（r = .15-.70）；但是，B部分在大多数组中都表现出足够的重测信度（r = .33-.80）。相反，iPad-TMT的A部分显示了足够的并发有效性（p> .05），而B部分则没有（p <.001）。但是，由于缺乏可靠性，A部分的有效性在这种情况下意义不大。有趣的是，结果表明惯用性对性能有显着影响，左撇子在iPad-TMT A部分（p <.05）和PAP-TMT B部分（p <.05）上表现较慢。有了这些发现，TMT规范就不能用于iPad版本，而应该为iPad-TMT建立新的规范。此外，应评估惯用性在TMT性能中的作用。鉴于这些最新发现，临床医生在使用以前的纸笔式考试的计算机化版本时应谨慎行事。

著录项

  • 作者

    Bracken, Magdalene R.;

  • 作者单位

    The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.;

  • 授予单位 The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.;
  • 学科 Clinical psychology.;Cognitive psychology.;Neurosciences.
  • 学位 Psy.D.
  • 年度 2017
  • 页码 97 p.
  • 总页数 97
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号