Relationship of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery to the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Abstract

One of the major questions that has arisen in the field of neuropsychology deals with the effectiveness of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery as compared with the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery, which has been recognized by many as the preeminent standardized battery. The present study compared the major 14 scores of the Halstead-Reitan battery with the 14 summary scale scores of the Luria-Nebraska battery to investigate whether the batteries could predict one another and their effectiveness in a common sample of 48 brain-damaged and 60 normal patients. Discriminant analysis found both batteries equally effective in identifying brain damage, with hit rates over 85%. A high degree of relationship (all Rs > .71, p < .05) between the Luria-Nebraska scale scores and the selected 14 scores of the Halstead-Reitan was found.

WAIS-R factors and performance on the Luria-Nebraska's intelligence, Memory, and Motor Scales: A canonical model of relationships

“…The results are noteworthy in several respects: There is a very consistent level of correlation between the WAIS-R's subtests and each Luria scale, a result quite similar to that reported by McKay et al (1981) for relationships between the WAIS and these three Luria scales. The somewhat greater magnitude of the current results speaks, we believe, to the greater homogeneity of our sample, which although diverse with respect to neurological impairments, was clearly less varied than that of Golden et al (1981) or McKay et al (1981). Second, the range of correlation between the WAIS-R subtests and the Luria scales is also remarkably stable in our results.…”

“…For the most part, however, relatively little attention has been devoted to determining how the Luria-Nebraska relates to other cognitive instruments, such as the Wechsler Scales (Wechsler, 1955(Wechsler, , 1981, which have had diverse clinical applications and are used widely in neuropsychological assessment. (Exceptions to this are the investigations of Chelune, 1982;Golden et al, 1981;McKay, Golden, Moses, Fishburne, & Wisniewski, 1981. ) In contrast to this, the Wechsler Scales have been studied in many contexts and populations (Dennerll, den Broeder, & Sokolov, 1964;Reed & Fitzhugh, 1967), and there has existed, for some time now, a general consensus with regard to these instruments' characteristics and general clinical value (Matarazzo, Carmody, & Jacobs, 1980).…”

“…(Some multifactor model that allows for correlated residuals may be, in fact, the most adequate [O'Grady, 19831. ) The existing research that has examined relationships between the Luria-Nebraska and the Wechsler Scales suggests that the two instruments are correlated strongly (Chelune, 1982;Golden et al, 1981;McKay et al, 1981). These correlations, though, typically have estimated associations among WAIS Verbal IQs, Performance IQs, Full Scale IQs, and the Luria-Nebraska's scaled scores, while they have ignored the factor structure of the WAIS (or WAIS-R) in neurologically impaired patients.…”

The Cattell–Horn–Carroll Model of Cognition for Clinical Assessment

“…Larrabee (2000) reviewed the exploratory factor analyses in outpatient samples of Leonberger, Nicks, Larrabee, and Goldfader (1992) and Larrabee and Curtiss (1992, 1995) showing a common factor structure underlying WAIS-R, the Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Battery, and other diverse neuropsychological tests, and noted that the factor structure was consistent with Carroll’s (1993) taxonomy of cognitive abilities. Evidence to date suggests that the Wechsler Intelligence Scales may have similar criterion-related validity in samples of people with brain disease as has been found for other comprehensive neuropsychological batteries (e.g., Golden et al, 1981; Kane, Parsons, & Goldstein, 1985; Loring & Larrabee, 2006; Sherer, Scott, Parsons, & Adams, 1994).…”

Parallel Changes in Cognitive Function and Gray Matter Volume After Multi-Component Training of Cognitive Control (MTCC) in Adolescents

“…More specifically, the Stroop interference score (IG) was calculated by using the following formula proposed by Golden (1978); “IG = CW – Pcw” (where Pcw = (W × C)/(W + C), W: word, C: color, CW: color–word condition). The TMT interference index was calculated with the “TMT b complete time/TMT a complete time” (Golden et al, 1981). The significance threshold was set at 0.05 because we hypothesized that the training would improve the performance of cognitive tests.…”