Cross-validation of Stein's Symbol-Gestalt Test for brain damage.

Parsons, Oscar A.; Maslow, Harriet I.; Stewart, Kenneth D.

doi:10.1037/h0044427

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although published studies involving the tests in this battery have carefully matched or equated groups on the age and education variables (Matthews et al, 1966;Reitan, 1955b), the effects of these variables have not been specified in a manner that would facilitate evaluation of the scores of any individual patient. Experience in our laboratories in Oklahoma in attempts at replication of published test results has underlined the possible effects of differences in the cultural composition of the populations as a factor to be considered in interpreting psychological test scores (Parsons, Maslow, & Stewart, 1963).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-validation of the Halstead-Reitan tests for brain damage.

Vega¹,

Parsons²

1967

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Self Cite

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Halstead-Reitan test battery offers considerable promise as a standardized research and clinical technique for studying behavioral deficits associated with brain damage. With the goals of cross-validation and of providing usable normative data from a population in a different geographic setting, the tests were administered to 50 brain-damaged and SO control Ss. The brain-damaged patients performed more poorly than the controls (p<.001) on all but 1 test. The general level of performance was lower than that previously reported. Overall performance of the control Ss was significantly related to age and educational level, with correlations of -.57 and .56, respectively. Use of Halstead's Impairment Index resulted in a 73% correct classification of both groups using a cutoff score of .7. Scores were transformed to allow intra-and interindividual comparisons of level of performance. A modified index resulted in 79% correct classification.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-validation of the Halstead-Reitan tests for brain damage.

Vega¹,

Parsons²

1967

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Self Cite

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note in this respect, that even on Trial III the mean weighted scores for the brain damaged in both experiments were below those of the neurotics for Trial I. This suggests that the Stein test possesses potential as a diagnostic instrument, a question we have examined elsewhere (Parsons, Maslow, & Stewart, 1963). Secondly, despite the pronounced differences in levels, no differences in rates of improvement on the weighted scores between groups were found after collapsing over treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…The test protocols were scored according to Stein's manual (see Footnote 3); interscorer reliability was 95% (Parsons, Maslow, & Stewart, 1963). Means for the total weighted scores and some of the components (number of symbols, number of correct symbols, percentage error) are presented in Table 1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of supportive versus disinterested interviews on perceptual-motor performance in brain-damaged and neurotic patients.

Parsons¹,

Stewart²

1966

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The differential effect of 2 types of interpolated interviews upon the perceptualmotor performance (Stein's Symbol-Gestalt Test) of brain-damaged and neurotic patients was investigated in 2 experiments. Cross-validated results indicate that Ss given disinterested, impersonal, irrelevant information-gathering interviews have a significantly lower rate of improvement over 3 successive administrations of the test than Ss given warm, supportive, anxiety-reducing interviews. Interaction effects were significant in the brain-damaged groups but not in the neurotics. The results support Goldstein's contention that brain damage results in a heightened dependency upon external cues and feedback and emphasize the importance of E variables in the clinical assessment of, and research, with brain-damaged populations.Emotional reactions and personality changes associated with brain damage have been described by many investigators (Brosin, 1952;Cameron, 1947;Goldstein, 1959;Reitan, 1955). The question of the degree to which such concomitants of cerebral dysfunction contribute to deficit in performance on intellectual and perceptual-motor tasks in the brain damaged has important implications for neuropsychological theories of behavior and, at a more practical level, for decisions about rehabilitation efforts, competency to handle business affairs, hospitalization, etc.A commonly reported emotional reaction to brain damage is increased anxiety. The deleterious effect of this affect upon performance in normal subjects (5s) on a variety of complex tasks has been well established (Sarason, 1960). There are two studies in 1 The first experiment was conducted while the authors were at Duke University Medical Center and represents partial fulfillment of the internship research requirements for the second author under the supervision of the first author. The second study was conducted at the Veterans Administration Hospital of the University of Oklahoma Medical Center; thanks are due to the staff and patients for their cooperation.

show abstract

The assessment of brain damage from a psychometric point of view

Schepers

1972

Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-validation of Stein's Symbol-Gestalt Test for brain damage.

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Cross-validation of the Halstead-Reitan tests for brain damage.

Cross-validation of the Halstead-Reitan tests for brain damage.

Effects of supportive versus disinterested interviews on perceptual-motor performance in brain-damaged and neurotic patients.

The assessment of brain damage from a psychometric point of view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About