Linked Life Data

17023140

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/17023140

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
8
pubmed:dateCreated
2006-11-13
pubmed:abstractText
The performances of 110 litigants on seven variables from the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological battery (HRNB) were used to compare Heaton, Miller, Taylor, and Grant's (2004) Deficit Scale (DS) and Reitan and Wolfson's (1993) Neuropsychological Deficit Scale (NDS). Additional comparisons were made for people who passed or failed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to determine effects of effort on scores generated by either scoring system. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that all seven comparisons were significantly different for the full sample (p< or =0.001). The NDS indicated greater levels of impairment compared to DS across all variables. These findings were also obtained when considering effort, though TOMM failure was related to non-significant differences for two variables. These findings suggest that the two scoring systems are not equivalent, with Heaton et al.'s DS resulting in consistently higher identification rates of normal brain functioning compared to those generated from Reitan and Wolfson's NDS system.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Dec
pubmed:issn
0887-6177
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
21
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
809-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2006
pubmed:articleTitle
Potential for interpretation disparities of Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological battery performances in a litigating sample.
pubmed:affiliation
University at Albany, State University of New York, NY 12222, United States.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study, Case Reports