4.3 Article

Mayo's older Americans normative studies: Age- and IQ-adjusted norms for the Boston Naming Test, the Mae Token Test, and the Judgment of Line Orientation Test

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGIST
Volume 19, Issue 3-4, Pages 280-328

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13854040590945229

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although many extant normative data Nets for standardized neuropsychometric instruments feature adjustments for subject variables, there are reasons to believe that improvements in interpretive accuracy that result from such adjustments are less than optimal. In particular, several theoretical considerations suggest that years of formal education may be less closely related to test performances than is general intellectual functioning. In this first of four reanalyses of results from the Mayo Clinic's Older Americans Normative Studies (MOANS) databases, age-adjusted scores on the Boston Naming Test, the MAE Token Test, and the Judgment of Line Orientation Test were indeed found to be more strongly associated with Mayo Age-adjusted WAIS-R Full Scale IQ scores (rs =.608,.473, and .502, respectively) than with education (rs =.310,.306, and .236, respectively) for healthy older examinees (56-99 years). Consistent with the remarks of Dodrifl (1997, 1999), these correlations generally decreased at higher levels of intelligence. The magnitude and pattern of such declines varied across the three tests, however, suggesting that IQ-test score associations must be empirically determined rather than assumed to he linear. Tables of Age- and IQ-Adjusted percentile equivalents of MOANS Age-adjusted BNT, Token Test, and JLO scaled scores are presented for eleven age ranges and seven IQ ranges. The article concludes with a discussion of factors that may underlie observed relations among age, intelligence, and neuropsychometric test performances.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available