4.5 Article

A rank subdivision of equivalent score for enhancing neuropsychological test norms

期刊

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 5243-5249

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-06140-6

关键词

Psychometrics; Neuropsychological tests; Statistics; Nonparametric; Classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neuropsychological assessment plays a crucial role in clinical care, and this study proposes a method based on non-parametric rank subdivision to calculate the Equivalent Score (ES) more accurately for neuropsychological tests.
Introduction Neuropsychological assessment of cognitive functioning is a crucial part of clinical care: diagnosis, treatment planning, treatment evaluation, research, and prediction of long-term outcomes. The Equivalent Score (ES) method is used to score numerous neuropsychological tests. The ES0 and the ES4 are defined respectively by the outer tolerance limit and the median. The intermediate ESs are commonly calculated using a z-score approach even when the distribution of neuropsychological data is typically non-parametric. To calculate more accurate ESs, we propose that the intermediate ESs need to be calculated based on a non-parametric rank subdivision of the distribution of the adjusted scores. Material and methods We make three simulations to explain the differences between the classical z-score approach, the rank-based approach, and the direct subdivision of the dependent variable. Results The results show that the rank procedure permits dividing the region between ES0 and ES4 into three areas with the same density. The z-score procedure is quite similar to the direct subdivision of the dependent variable and different from the rank subdivision. Conclusions By subdividing intermediate ESs using the rank-subdivision, neuropsychological tests can be scored more accurately, also considering that the two essential points for diagnosis (ES = 0 and ES = 4) remain the same. Future normative data definition should consider the best procedure for scoring with ES.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据