Evaluation of reliability of computerized neurobehavioral tests in Korean children

Lee, Kyeong-Soo; Jeon, Man-Joong; Hwang, Tae-Yoon; Kim, Changyoon; Sakong, Joon

doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2012.08.013

Cited by 5 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This statement is highly supported by some authors in their studies on the effects of cultural background on neurobehavioural tests whereby, they have concluded that some cognitive and motor processes were affected by racial or cultural background [10]. These findings were also supported in the studies on Koreans [11]. For example, Anger reported that daily use of chopsticks may affect psychomotor performance while Chung reported that cultural background has a large influence on neurobehavioural test performance, even within Asian populations [9,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Based on the results presented in Practice effects refer to gains in scores on cognitive tests that occur when a person is retested on the same instrument or tested more than once on very similar ones [9,11]. These gains are due to the experience of having taken the test previously and also may influence on retest results which can increase their overall score [18].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Pearson coefficients values are then, to be compared with the ICCs obtained. ICC is known as the preferred measure for use as a test and retest reliability coefficient in computerized neurobehavioural tests [11]. It describes how strongly the test-retest scores in the same group resemble each other [10,11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ICC is known as the preferred measure for use as a test and retest reliability coefficient in computerized neurobehavioural tests [11]. It describes how strongly the test-retest scores in the same group resemble each other [10,11]. A two-way mixed effect model was applied in this study to determine the ICCs and their 95% confidence intervals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The important role of an examiner may affect the reliability of computerized tests. Hence, to minimize the error contributed by the examiner in the process of test administration, similar general environmental condition including comfortable room temperature, lighting, and quiet condition were provided to participants in both test and retest sessions [7,9,11]. Identical instructions for the method of the tests were given for all the participants [7].…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Preliminary Reliability Study of Computerized Neurobehavioural Test Method

Shaari¹,

Hariri

Paiman

et al. 2018

IJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recently developed Neurobehavioural Risk Assessment Evaluation System 1.0 (NeuRAES 1.0) tool aims to assess the neurobehavioural performance in Malaysia. Prior to utilize the advantage of the developed NeuRAES 1.0 tool effectively, it is vital to evaluate its reliability. The study aimed to conduct test and retest of NeuRAES 1.0 and assess the reliability of the NeuRAES 1.0 tool among university students in Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia (UTHM). With that regard, the reliability of the tool was examined among 40 healthy university students using a test-retest of four computerized tests that are, Benton Visual Retention, Symbol Memory, Trail Making, and Pursuit Aiming, with the test and retest held two weeks apart. The reliability was analyzed for all test measures using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). A two-way mixed effect model was applied in this study to determine the ICCs and their 95% confidence intervals. The finding of all parameter measures in all four tests for standard scores were significantly similar, and the improvements of scores were also detected at retest for raw scores. The test-retest scores were found to have the ICC values ranging from low to adequate (0.269 to 0.655).

show abstract