Assessing the reliability and abnormality of subtest differences on the test of everyday attention

J. R. Crawford, J. Sommerville, Ian H. Robertson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives. To assist clinicians with the analysis of an individual's profile of subtest strength and weaknesses on the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA).

Design, The study applied psychometric methods for the quantitive analysis of subtest profiles (Silverstein, 1982, 1984a, b).

Methods. Formulae to compute the standard error of the difference and standard deviation of the difference between a subtest and a client's mean subtest scores were applied to determine critical values for reliable and abnormal differences. The data used were derived from the TEA standardization sample (N = 154).

Results. Tables for examining whether an individual's TEA subtest profile contains reliable and abnormal subtest discrepancies are presented.

Conclusions. Elegant methods of analysing a subtest profile were extended for use with the Test of Everyday Attention. In keeping with the rationale underlying the measurement of neuropsychological deficit (Lezak, 1995), these methods complement the existing TEA normative comparison standards by providing individual comparison standards for a client's performance. Guidance on the use of the tables is offered; the distinction between reliable and abnormal differences is highlighted.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)609-617
Number of pages9
JournalBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology
Volume36
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 1997

Keywords

  • pattern-analysis

Cite this

Assessing the reliability and abnormality of subtest differences on the test of everyday attention. / Crawford, J. R.; Sommerville, J. ; Robertson, Ian H.

In: British Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 4, 11.1997, p. 609-617.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{03798e15e5d04a85add5ed76a5a3a1fc,
title = "Assessing the reliability and abnormality of subtest differences on the test of everyday attention",
abstract = "Objectives. To assist clinicians with the analysis of an individual's profile of subtest strength and weaknesses on the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA).Design, The study applied psychometric methods for the quantitive analysis of subtest profiles (Silverstein, 1982, 1984a, b).Methods. Formulae to compute the standard error of the difference and standard deviation of the difference between a subtest and a client's mean subtest scores were applied to determine critical values for reliable and abnormal differences. The data used were derived from the TEA standardization sample (N = 154).Results. Tables for examining whether an individual's TEA subtest profile contains reliable and abnormal subtest discrepancies are presented.Conclusions. Elegant methods of analysing a subtest profile were extended for use with the Test of Everyday Attention. In keeping with the rationale underlying the measurement of neuropsychological deficit (Lezak, 1995), these methods complement the existing TEA normative comparison standards by providing individual comparison standards for a client's performance. Guidance on the use of the tables is offered; the distinction between reliable and abnormal differences is highlighted.",
keywords = "pattern-analysis",
author = "Crawford, {J. R.} and J. Sommerville and Robertson, {Ian H.}",
year = "1997",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01265.x",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "609--617",
journal = "British Journal of Clinical Psychology",
issn = "0144-6657",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing the reliability and abnormality of subtest differences on the test of everyday attention

AU - Crawford, J. R.

AU - Sommerville, J.

AU - Robertson, Ian H.

PY - 1997/11

Y1 - 1997/11

N2 - Objectives. To assist clinicians with the analysis of an individual's profile of subtest strength and weaknesses on the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA).Design, The study applied psychometric methods for the quantitive analysis of subtest profiles (Silverstein, 1982, 1984a, b).Methods. Formulae to compute the standard error of the difference and standard deviation of the difference between a subtest and a client's mean subtest scores were applied to determine critical values for reliable and abnormal differences. The data used were derived from the TEA standardization sample (N = 154).Results. Tables for examining whether an individual's TEA subtest profile contains reliable and abnormal subtest discrepancies are presented.Conclusions. Elegant methods of analysing a subtest profile were extended for use with the Test of Everyday Attention. In keeping with the rationale underlying the measurement of neuropsychological deficit (Lezak, 1995), these methods complement the existing TEA normative comparison standards by providing individual comparison standards for a client's performance. Guidance on the use of the tables is offered; the distinction between reliable and abnormal differences is highlighted.

AB - Objectives. To assist clinicians with the analysis of an individual's profile of subtest strength and weaknesses on the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA).Design, The study applied psychometric methods for the quantitive analysis of subtest profiles (Silverstein, 1982, 1984a, b).Methods. Formulae to compute the standard error of the difference and standard deviation of the difference between a subtest and a client's mean subtest scores were applied to determine critical values for reliable and abnormal differences. The data used were derived from the TEA standardization sample (N = 154).Results. Tables for examining whether an individual's TEA subtest profile contains reliable and abnormal subtest discrepancies are presented.Conclusions. Elegant methods of analysing a subtest profile were extended for use with the Test of Everyday Attention. In keeping with the rationale underlying the measurement of neuropsychological deficit (Lezak, 1995), these methods complement the existing TEA normative comparison standards by providing individual comparison standards for a client's performance. Guidance on the use of the tables is offered; the distinction between reliable and abnormal differences is highlighted.

KW - pattern-analysis

U2 - 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01265.x

DO - 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1997.tb01265.x

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 609

EP - 617

JO - British Journal of Clinical Psychology

JF - British Journal of Clinical Psychology

SN - 0144-6657

IS - 4

ER -