Limit this search to....

Practitioner's Guide to Evaluating Change with Neuropsychological Assessment Instruments Softcover Repri Edition
Contributor(s): McCaffrey, Robert J. (Editor), Duff, Kevin (Editor), Westervelt, Holly James (Editor)
ISBN: 1461369010     ISBN-13: 9781461369011
Publisher: Springer
OUR PRICE:   $161.49  
Product Type: Paperback - Other Formats
Published: November 2012
Qty:
Additional Information
BISAC Categories:
- Social Science
- Psychology | Psychopathology - General
- Psychology | Applied Psychology
Dewey: 616.890
Series: Critical Issues in Neuropsychology
Physical Information: 1.16" H x 7" W x 10" (2.16 lbs) 552 pages
Themes:
- Topical - Mentally Challenged
 
Descriptions, Reviews, Etc.
Publisher Description:
The impetus for this volume began with our research in the 1980's involving serial neuropsychological evaluation with various patient populations. At that time, reports on the practice effects associated with routinely utilized clinical neuropsychological instruments were sparse. While test-retest data were available for almost all assessment instruments, this was usually in the form of correlation coefficients and not changes in mean performance between or across assessment periods (see McCaffrey & Westervelt, 1995 for a detailed discussion of these and related issues). Clinical neuropsychological practitioners had few guidelines to assist them in determining if a change in a patient's performance across assessments was due to an intervention, maturation, practice effects, or a combination of factors. This volume represents our efforts at reviewing the literature between 1970 and 1998 and extracting the reported information on practice effects. The tables include the assessment instrument used, information on the subject/patient groups, the sample size (n}, gender, age, intervention, interval between the assessments, scores at both assessment points, and the citation. Those studies that reported data on more than two assessment points are indicated by a notation however, any data beyond the second assessment are not reported and the interested reader should refer to the original article. The tables are arranged alphabetically for the most widely used assessment instruments. Those instruments for which there was limited data on practice effects are grouped by "domain" (e. g.