The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision: Validation with Brain-Damaged and Normal Children

Abstract

This paper discusses briefly the development and rationale behind the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision. Three investigations are discussed: (a) the development of normative data on a group of 125 normal children between the ages of 96 and 155 months, (b) development of the critical level formula for determining the upper bounds for normal performance given a child's age, and (c) a validation of the ability of the battery to discriminate between normal and brain-injured children selected as a separate sample from that used in the initial investigations. In the third study, a MANOVA as well as subsequent individual t tests indicated highly significant group differences. Counting scores above the patient's critical level (as determined from the formula designed in the second investigation) resulted in correct classification of 89% of the normal children and 79% of the brain-injured children. Methods of interpreting the battery and limitations of the current study are discussed.

Diagnostic utility of the critical level formula and clinical summary scales of the luria‐nebraska Neuropsychological Battery‐Children's Revision with learning‐disabled children

“…In a discriminant function analysis, the Pathognomonic scale contributed the most for predicting membership for two separate clinical groups: Group 1 was comprised of 125 normals and 76 brain-impaired, and Group 2 was comprised of 91 normals and 58 brainimpaired children (Sawicki et al, 1984). The overall classification rates were higher than previously reported by Wilkening et al (1981) and by Gustavson et al (1981). When the Pathognomonic and the Left Sensorimotor scales wee added to the 11 original scales, the following hit rates were reported: 96.7% for normals and 88.9% for brain-injured in Group 1 and 95.6% for normals and 79.3% for brain-injured in Group 2 (Sawicki et al, 1984).…”

“…In a cross-validation study, Gustavson et al (1981) found slightly higher accuracy rates with 91 normals and 58 brain-damaged children. Overall classification accuracy for these groups reached 85%.…”

“…Overall classification accuracy for these groups reached 85%. Gustavson et al (1981) also combined all data from two separate studies to determine how achievement and intelligence scores were related to performance on the LNNB-C. The following correlations were reported: .86 (LNNB-C with WISC-R Full Scale IQ), .83 (LNNB-C with Verbal IQ), .83 (LNNB-C with Performance IQ), .87 (LNNB-C with WRAT Reading) .81 (LNNB-C with WRAT Spelling) and .73 (LNNB-C with WRAT Arithmetic).…”

“…TEETER, BOLIEK, OBRZUT, MALSCH The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision (LNNB-C) was first introduced by Gustavson et al (1981) and has undergone four major revisions to date (Plaisted, Gustavson, Wilkening, & Golden, 1983). The LNNB-C is based on Luria's neuropsychological theory of functional systems and is a standardized approach for systematically measuring the functional status of the brain in children between the ages of 8 and 12 years.…”

“…The LNNB-C is based on Luria's neuropsychological theory of functional systems and is a standardized approach for systematically measuring the functional status of the brain in children between the ages of 8 and 12 years. Although the LNNB-C was developed as a primary assessment tool for differentiating "brain-injured" from normal children, Gustavson et al (1981) suggested that the battery can be used (a) to identify specific and broad-based behavioral deficits resulting from brain dysfunction, which become the basis of intervention techniques; and (b) to study the development of the brain as it relates to behavioral changes in children. The battery is composed of 149 items measuring a variety of neuropsychological functions, including motor skills, tone discrimination, tactile localization and discrimination, visual recognition, expressive and receptive language, achievementoriented abilities (i.e., writing, reading, and arithmetic), and sensory and intellectual processes (Plaisted et al, 1983).…”