During an early research phase in the WAIS-IV project, the research directors investigated if Digit Span Forward could be eliminated (i.e., if the scaled score for Digit Span could be obtained by administering Digit Span Backward and Digit Span Sequencing only). This practice will result in inaccurate scaled scores. The Digit Span Forward and Digit Span Backward scores cannot be averaged to obtain an estimate of the Digit Span Sequencing score. Forgoing administration of any part of Digit Span results in a lower raw score, and therefore an artificially low subtest scaled score. Digit Span Forward, Digit Span Backward, and Digit Span Sequencing all are necessary to derive the Digit Span subtest scaled score. Bypassing the second trial may therefore result in awarding credit for trials more difficult than the first.Īdminister all three parts of the subtest. In some cases, smaller numbers are used to make the first trial of a given span length easier than the second trial. This practice is problematic because trials vary in terms of difficulty. Never present only a single trial of a given length and subsequently award credit for subsequent trials of that length to shorten administration time. Varying voice pitch may facilitate use of a chunking strategy, which may result in an overestimate of ability.Īdminister all trials as instructed. Consistent pitch should be used to enunciate all except the final digit, for which voice pitch should drop slightly to indicate presentation is complete and the examinee may begin to respond. Another common error is to vary voice pitch when pronouncing each digit in a sequence. You may wish to tap your foot lightly under the table to ensure a standard presentation rate. It is critical to practice the proper presentation rate. One of the most common administration errors is to present digits faster than one per second. Weiss, in WAIS-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation, 2010 Digit Spanĭigit Span presentation rate and pitch should be consistent with standard procedures. Findings highlight the importance of including individuals with verified TBI when evaluating and developing PVTs.ĭigit Span Traumatic brain injury malingering performance validity.Susan Engi Raiford. This relative superiority may reflect that individuals with verified TBI are more likely to perseverate on prior instructions during DS Sequencing. traditional RDS demonstrated the best classification accuracy with respect to specificity/sensitivity balance. Conclusion: In the context of moderate-to-severe TBI, the DS-derived PVTs showed comparable discriminability. A greater percentage of TBI scored RDS Sequencing < 1 compared to SIM and HC. HC however, the traditional RDS showed the highest sensitivity when approximating 90% specificity for SIM vs. ROC analyses indicated that RDS variables were comparable predictors of SIM vs. Post hoc contrasts revealed that only RDS Forward and the traditional RDS differed significantly between SIM and TBI. Results: Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated that all DS indices differed significantly across groups. Participants completed the WAIS-IV DS subtest in the context of a larger test battery. Methods: Participants included 64 adults with moderate-to-severe TBI (TBI), 51 healthy adults coached to simulate TBI (SIM), and 78 healthy comparisons (HC). This study compared DS-derived PVT classification accuracies in a design that included adults with verified TBI. Reports have indicated that these new performance validity tests (PVTs) are superior to the traditional RDS however, comparisons in the context of known neurocognitive impairment are sparse. Objective: The addition of Sequencing to WAIS-IV Digit Span (DS) brought about new Reliable Digit Span (RDS) indices and an Age-Corrected Scaled Score that includes Sequencing trials.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |