This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas Jefferson University's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in Department of Physical Therapy Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of the Jefferson Digital Commons.

No abstract

Evaluation of affective status in medical patients is frequently hampered by the uncertain validity, questionable relevance, or both, of certain items on measures used for this purpose. In this study, we examined the validity of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R) as a measure of psychological distress in stroke patients. Those SCL-90-R symptoms (N = 19) that were designated by at least 8 of 10 expert raters as "usual consequences of stroke" were labeled "stroke symptoms." These items loaded primarily on the Somatization, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Depression scales. Among a sample of 30 patients hospitalized for acute rehabilitation following unilateral stroke, average scores fell at or above the 70th percentile (relative to normative data given in the manual) on five of the nine symptom dimensions and on all three summary indices of distress. Significantly elevated rates of endorsement were found in the stroke group on 12 of the 19 "stroke symptoms" and on 20 of the remaining symptoms as well. Participants with right-hemisphere lesions generally reported higher levels of distress than did the smaller group of patients with left hemisphere involvement. Our study suggests that at least some portion of SCL-90-R elevations is likely to be attributable to endorsement of phenomena that comprise part of the "natural history" of stroke. Our findings underscore the need for clinicians to examine individual responses of neurological patients on such self-report measures, as simple interpretation of summary scale scores can be highly misleading.

The Hooper Visual Organization Test (HVOT) provides an excellent illustration of the multifactorial nature of most neuropsychological tests. Although the HVOT clearly requires certain visual perceptual skills, the test also demands that the subject produce an overt verbal response - i.e., the name of the object that has been cut up and rearranged. Thus, individuals with disorders of confrontation naming may obtain low scores on the HVOT by virtue of their anomia, even if the primary perceptual skills that the HVOT purports to assess are intact. The present study was designed to minimize the demands of object naming on HVOT performance, by using a multiple choice format of the HVOT. Fourteen individuals with lateralized injury resulting from either cerebral vascular accident or cerebral contusion were administered the Boston Naming Test (BNT) and the standard version of the HVOT. Approximately 24 hours later, subjects were administered the Multiple-Choice Hooper Visual Organization Test (MC-HVOT). The MC-HVOT consisted of the 30 original HVOT stimuli presented with four response choices, including the correct response and three foils. A paired sample t test revealed that anomic subjects achieved a significantly greater number of correct responses on the MC-HVOT then under the standard HVOT administration. Subjects with both right and left hemisphere involvement benefited from diminished naming demands. Overall HVOT performance significantly improved when the object naming demand was reduced, resulting in a clearer assessment of visual integration skills. These findings may have significant implications for both interpretation of impairment and formulation of treatment recommendations.