DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Latent Structure of Cognitive Malingering: a Multivariate Taxometric Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Latent Structure of Cognitive Malingering: a Multivariate Taxometric Analysis ON THE LATENT STRUCTURE OF COGNITIVE MALINGERING: A MULTIVARIATE TAXOMETRIC ANALYSIS By OTTO PEDRAZA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004 Copyright 2004 by Otto Pedraza TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1 Cognitive Malingering..................................................................................................4 Research Methodology in Cognitive Malingering .......................................................6 Case-Study Designs...............................................................................................7 Simulation Designs..............................................................................................10 Known-Groups Designs ......................................................................................11 Differential Prevalence Designs..........................................................................14 Floor Effect..........................................................................................................15 Performance Curve..............................................................................................16 Magnitude of Error..............................................................................................18 Symptom Validity Testing ..................................................................................19 Atypical Presentation...........................................................................................23 Psychological Sequelae .......................................................................................26 Additional Factors Involved in Cognitive Malingering Research..............................26 Instructions ..........................................................................................................27 Incentives.............................................................................................................28 Coaching..............................................................................................................29 Warning ...............................................................................................................30 Order Effects .......................................................................................................30 Standard versus Specific Measures .....................................................................31 Nature of the Problem: The Malingering Construct...................................................32 Latent Structure Analysis and Multivariate Taxometrics...........................................36 Maximum Covariance .........................................................................................39 Mean above Minus below a Cut..........................................................................41 Maximum Eigenvalue .........................................................................................42 Intellectual Functioning..............................................................................................43 Statement of the Problem............................................................................................44 iii Goals and Hypotheses.................................................................................................46 Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................................................47 Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................................................47 Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................................................48 Hypothesis 4 ........................................................................................................48 2 METHOD ...................................................................................................................50 Participants .................................................................................................................50 Materials .....................................................................................................................51 Informed Consent ................................................................................................51 Questionnaire.......................................................................................................51 Instructions to Analogue Malingering Participants.............................................51 Quiz .....................................................................................................................52 Instructions to Control Participants.....................................................................52 Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence .......................................................52 Malingering Measures.........................................................................................52 Clinical Measures ................................................................................................53 Manipulation Check ............................................................................................54 Strategies Questionnaire......................................................................................54 Debriefing Form ..................................................................................................54 Procedure ....................................................................................................................54 Statistical Analyses.....................................................................................................55 Hypothesis 1 ........................................................................................................56 Hypothesis 2 ........................................................................................................59 Hypothesis 3 ........................................................................................................59 Hypothesis 4 ........................................................................................................59 3 RESULTS...................................................................................................................60 Taxometric Analyses ..................................................................................................65 Suitability ............................................................................................................66 Mean above Minus below a Cut..........................................................................68 Maximum Covariance .........................................................................................70 Maximum Eigenvalue .........................................................................................71 Consistency Test..................................................................................................71 Cluster Analysis..........................................................................................................72 Intellectual Ability and Cognitive Malingering..........................................................73 Operating Characteristics of the Malingering Measures ............................................76 Strategies for Feigning Cognitive Impairment ...........................................................79 Visual Analogue Scale ........................................................................................79 Malingering Strategies.........................................................................................80 4 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................82 Cognitive Malingering as a Dimensional Construct...................................................84 Intellectual Ability......................................................................................................88 iv Classification Accuracy..............................................................................................91 Limitations to the Present Study and Future Directions.............................................93 APPENDIX A ACCIDENT SCENARIO ...........................................................................................97 B FLOW CHART ..........................................................................................................98 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...........................................................................................113 v LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Continuous demographic variables .........................................................................60 3-2 Categorical demographic variables .........................................................................61 3-3 Performance on clinical measures (raw scores) ......................................................62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Teleneuropsychology (Telenp) in Response to COVID-19: Practical Guidelines to Balancing Validity Concerns with Clinical Need
    Teleneuropsychology (TeleNP) in Response to COVID-19: Practical Guidelines to Balancing Validity Concerns with Clinical Need Rene Stolwyk, DPsych(Clin.Neuro), PsyBA Dustin B. Hammers, Ph.D., ABPP(CN) Senior Lecturer and Clinical Neuropsychologist Board Certified in Clinical Neuropsychology Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health Associate Professor, Department of Neurology Monash University, Melbourne, Australia University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Twitter: @rene_stolwyk Lana Harder, PhD, ABPP C. Munro Cullum, Ph.D., ABPP-CN Board Certified in Clinical Neuropsychology Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Neurosurgery Board Certified Subspecialist in Pediatric Neuropsychology Pam Blumenthal Distinguished Professor of Clinical Psychology Children’s Medical Center Dallas Senior Neuropsychologist, O’Donnell Brain Institute Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] INS Webinar Presented on 4/2/2020 Objectives Following this webinar, attendees will be able to: • Understand the evidence base supporting TeleNP procedures as well as the strengths and limitations of different models • Apply knowledge of models of TeleNP and evaluate potential feasibility within your own clinical settings • Understand key legal and ethical considerations when providing TeleNP services Outline • Ethical and Legal Challenges • Logistical and Practical Considerations • Models of TeleNP • Evidence for use of Specific Measures over TeleNP and Patient Satisfaction • Practical Considerations for Home-Based TeleNP Our Experience with TeleNP • Dr. Hammers leads the University of Utah TeleNP Program • Joint relationship between University of Utah Cognitive Disorders Clinic and St.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Psychological Tests Material Was Prepared for Use As an Aid in Handling Requests for Psychological Testing
    List of Psychological Tests Material was prepared for use as an aid in handling requests for psychological testing. The minutes allocated for each test include administration, scoring and write up. Determination of the medical necessity of psychological tests always requires consideration of the clinical facts of the specific case to assure that tests given are a cost-effective means of determining the appropriate treatment for the individual patient and are related to the diagnosis and treatment of covered mental health conditions. INSTRUMENT TYPE AGE MINUT COMMENTS ES 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16-PF) Personality 16+ 30 35-60 min per Tests in Print for admin time only ABEL Screen Sexual Interest Adol + 120 Primarily forensic in nature: may not be covered Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment 60 Preschool Module Behav Rating Scale 1.5-5 10 Caregiver-Teacher Report Form Behav Rating Scale 1.5-5 10 Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Behav Rating Scale 1.5-5 15 Teacher Report Form Behav Rating Scale 6-18 20 Youth Self-Report (YSR) Behav Rating Scale 11-18 20 ACTeERS-ADD-H Comprehensive, Teachers Rating Scale Behav Rating Scale 5 – 13 15 Adaptive Behavior Assessment System (ABAS II) Behav Rating Scale 0-89 30 Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS) Developmental 3-18 30 ADHD Rating Scale Behav Rating Scale 4 – 18 15 Adolescent Anger Rating Scale Behav Rating Scale 11-19 15 Adolescent Apperception Cards Projective Personality 12 – 19 60 Adult Behavior Checklist (ABCL) Behav Rating Scale 18-89 30 Admin. Time 20 min. + 10 min. for scoring, interpretation, write up. Adolescent Psychopathology Scale Personality Child-adult 60 Alzheimer’s Quick Test (AQT) Neuro Adult 10 Amen System Checklist Behav Rating Scale Adult 15 Animal Naming Neuro Child-adult 10 Aphasia Screening Test (Reitan Indiana) Neuro 5+ 30 Asperger’s Syndrome Diagnostic Scales (ASDS) Rating scale 5-18 20 Attention Deficit Disorder Eval.
    [Show full text]
  • Geriatric Performance on an Abbreviated Version of the Boston Naming Test
    Applied Neuropsychology Copyright # 2007 by 2007, Vol. 14, No. 3, 215–223 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Geriatric Performance on an Abbreviated Version of the Boston Naming Test Angela L. Jefferson Alzheimer’s Disease Center & Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Sarah Wong and Talia S. Gracer Alzheimer’s Disease Center & Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA and Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA Al Ozonoff Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Robert C. Green Alzheimer’s Disease Center & Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA and Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Robert A. Stern Alzheimer’s Disease Center & Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA Abbreviated neuropsychological protocols are increasingly utilized secondary to time- constraints within research and healthcare settings, yet normative data for these abbrevi- ated instruments are lacking. We present geriatric performances and normative data for the Boston Naming Test 30-item even version (BNT-30). Data were utilized from the BU-ADCC registry (n ¼ 441, ages 55–98) and included 219 normal controls (NC), 155 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 67 participants with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The NC group (M ¼ 28.7, SD ¼ 1.8) significantly outperformed both MCI (M ¼ 26.2, SD ¼ 4.4) and AD (M ¼ 22.1, SD ¼ 4.8) groups, and the MCI group outperformed the AD group. Normative data generated for the NC participants revealed a significant between-group difference for sex (males M ¼ 29.1, SD ¼ 1.7; females M ¼ 28.4, SD ¼ 1.8) and race (White M ¼ 28.8, SD ¼ 1.7; African American M ¼ 27.5, SD ¼ 2.1).
    [Show full text]
  • Frontotemporal Dementia, Semantic Dementia, and Alzheimer’S Disease: the Contribution of Standard Neuropsychological Tests to Differential Diagnosis
    Frontotemporal Dementia, Semantic Dementia, and Alzheimer’s Disease: The Contribution of Standard Neuropsychological Tests to Differential Diagnosis J. Diehl, MD, A.U. Monsch, PhD, C. Aebi, PhD, S. Wagenpfeil, PhD, S. Krapp, T. Grimmer, MD, W. Seeley, MD, H. Förstl, MD, and A. Kurz, MD ABSTRACT CERAD-NAB (Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease–Neuropsychological Assessment Battery) data were compared between 51 patients with frontotemporal dementia, 13 with semantic dementia, and 69 with Alzheimer’s disease. There were statistically significant differences between the 3 groups. Compared with patients with Alzheimer’s disease, patients with frontotemporal dementia were more impaired on Animal Fluency but not on any other CERAD-NAB subtest. Patients with semantic dementia performed worse in Animal Fluency and Boston Naming Test compared with frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that in the differentiation between frontotemporal dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, the combination of Animal Fluency and Boston Naming Test correctly classified 90.5% of patients. In segregating semantic dementia and Alzheimer’s dis- ease, the combination of Boston Naming Test and Mini Mental State Examination resulted in a correct classification of 96.3%. These findings demonstrate that the Mini Mental State Examination and the language subtests of the CERAD- NAB are valuable clinical instruments for the differential diagnosis between early frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease. (J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2005; 18: 39–44) Keywords: frontotemporal dementia; semantic dementia; differential diagnosis; CERAD-NAB; Boston Naming test; animal fluency Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) semantic dementia (SD), Received March 1, 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Methods to Evaluate Cognitive Deficits in Commercial Airline Pilots
    Comparing Methods to Evaluate Cognitive Deficits in Commercial Airline Pilots Joshua Potocko, MD/MPH UCSF Occupational and Environmental Medicine Residency 30 Min Background Philosophy Scope Comparisons Evidence Review: Example Questions for the Group BACKGROUND LCDR Joshua R. Potocko, MC (FS/FMF), USN “The views expressed in this presentation reflect the results of research conducted by the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the United States Government.” Potocko’s 6 Proclamations: Certain baseline cognitive functions decline with age. Within an individual, these declines are difficult to predict. Between individuals, different types of decline are variable. Understanding the following are critically important to aviation safety: Age-related declines Temporary disturbances in cognitive function, Stable (or progressive) baseline disturbances due to injury, illness, disease, medication, and substance use. When does cognitive dysfunction become unsafe? Cognitive Function Typical, Normal, Adequate, Average Cognitive Inefficiency Circadian, Fatigue, Mood, Stress Cognitive Deficiency Injury, Illness, Meds, Substances Cognitive Disability Above plus regulatory decisions => requires safety factor Baseline New Baseline Unfit Period Injury Illness Meds Baseline Progressive Decline Age XX? Permanently Unfit Disease? PHILOSOPHY Research Question: What is the “best” way to evaluate cognitive deficits in airline pilots? Best: historical? expert opinion?...or
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory Joel A
    Digital Commons @ George Fox University Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) Theses and Dissertations 7-1-2006 Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory Joel A. Gregor George Fox University, [email protected] This research is a product of the Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) program at George Fox University. Find out more about the program. Recommended Citation Gregor, Joel A., "Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory" (2006). Doctor of Psychology (PsyD). Paper 140. http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/psyd/140 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Psychology (PsyD) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory by Joel A. Gregor Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology George Fox University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology Newberg, Oregon July 14, 2006 MURDOCKlEARNING RESOURCE CENTER GEORGE FOX UNIVERSITY NEWBERG, OR 97132 Attentional Interference vs. Memory ii Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory by Joel A. Gregor has been approved at the Graduate Department of Clinical Psychology George Fox University as a Dissertation for the PsyD degree Signatures: (Lrb\��Q ChristopHer Koch, PhD, Chair Wayne Date: '1· \4' O(e:. Attentional Interference vs. Memory iii Analysis of Different Types of Attentional Interference Compared to Working Memory Joel A. Gregor Graduate Student of Clinical Psychology George Fox University Newberg, Oregon Abstract Previous studies have shown a relationship between working memory (WM)and the Color-Word Stroop Task (CWS).
    [Show full text]
  • Boston Naming Test with Latencies (Bnt-L)
    BOSTON NAMING TEST WITH LATENCIES (BNT-L) Margaret Anne Budd, MEd, MPH Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2007 APPROVED: Susan F. Franks, Major Professor Richard Herrington, Committee Member James Hall, Committee Member Jose Toledo, Committee Member Linda Marshall, Chair of the Department of Psychology Sandra L. Terrell, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Budd, Margaret Anne. Boston Naming Test with Latencies (BNT-L). Doctor of Philosophy (Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine), May 2007, 168 pp., 15 tables, 9 figures, references, 129 titles. Although most people have experienced word-finding difficulty at one time or another, there are no clinical instruments able to reliably distinguish normal age-related effects from pathology in word-finding impairment. Two experiments were conducted to establish a modified version of the Boston Naming Test (BNT) that includes latency times, the Boston Naming Test of Latencies (BNT-L), in order to improve the instrument's sensitivity to mild to moderate word- finding impairment. Experiment 1: Latency times on the 60-item BNT (Goodglass et al., 2001) for 235 healthy adults’ ages 18-89 years were collected on a representative sample. Qualitative features of the BNT items, statistical analyses, IRT, and demographic considerations of age, gender, education, vocabulary, race and culture, helped create a reduced BNT-L version with 15 of the most discriminating items. Statistically sound and sophisticated normative tables are provided that adjust for unseen covariates. Response latencies did not indicate earlier age-related decline in an optimally healthy sample. Experiment 2: Twenty-three patients referred for neuropsychological testing were administered the BNT-L.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 COGNITION ASSESSMENT and INTERVENTION
    Cognition Assessment and Intervention Chapter 7 COGNITION ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTION † MARY VINING RADOMSKI, PHD, OTR/L*; SHARI GOO-YOSHINO, MS ; CAROL SMITH HAMMOND, PHD, CCC/ ‡ § ¥ ¶ SLP ; EMI ISAKI, PHD ; DON MACLENNAN, MA ; R. KEVIN MANNING, PHD ; PAULINE MASHIMA, PHD, CCC/ ** †† ‡‡ §§ SLP ; LINDA M. PICON, MCD, CCC/SLP ; CAROLE R. ROTH, PHD, BC-ANCDS ; AND JOETTE ZOLA, BS, OT INTRODUCTION SECTION 1: ASSESSMENT Introduction Brief Cognitive Assessment Broad Assessment of Cognitive-Linguistic Abilities Domain-Specific Assessments Functional Performance Assessments SECTION 2: INTERVENTION Introduction Overview of Cognitive Rehabilitation Intervention Methods Clinician Tip Sheet: Principles of Cognitive Rehabilitation Cognitive Intervention Techniques to Promote Patient Engagement, Awareness, and Learning Clinician Tip Sheet: Motivational Interviewing Clinician Tip Sheet: AAA Self-Reflection Form Clinician Tip Sheet: Methods to Promote Compensatory Cognitive Strategy Learning Clinician Tip Sheet: Core Cognitive Strategy Recommendations Grid and Working Log Cognition Education Clinician Tip Sheet: How to Explain Human Information Processing Improving Attention and Speed of Processing Clinician Tip Sheet: Inventory of Attention/Speed-of-Processing Difficulties 175 Mild TBI Rehabilitation Toolkit Clinician Tip Sheet: Experiencing Attention Levels Clinician Tip Sheet: Overview of Strategies to Cope with Attention and Speed-of-Processing Difficulties Clinician Tip Sheet: Strategies to Improve Attention—Identifying High- and Low-Demand Tasks
    [Show full text]
  • 2018Almubark10454247phd.Pdf
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk 04 University of Plymouth Research Theses 01 Research Theses Main Collection 2018 ASSESSING COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS IN ARABIC AND ENGLISH SPEAKING POPULATIONS Almubark, Bazah http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/11119 University of Plymouth All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published without the author's prior consent. 1 ASSESSING COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS IN ARABIC AND ENGLISH SPEAKING POPULATIONS by BAZAH MAJED ALMUBARK A thesis submitted to Plymouth University in partial fulfilment of the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Psychology Faculty of Health and Human Sciences March 2018 2 Acknowledgment I would like to express my deepest appreciation and sincere gratitude to my director of studies Dr. Caroline Floccia, who supported me throughout my PhD study. She continually provided me with supervision and help required for my PhD study and related researches. I am extremely lucky to have her as my director of studies and mentor. Without her guidance and persistent help this thesis would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Dementia Diagnostics in Primary Care: with a Focus on Cognitive Testing
    Linköping University Medical Dissertations No. 1691 Anna Segernäs Kvitting Anna Segernäs FACULTY OF MEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES Linköping Medical Dissertations No. 1691, 2019 Dementia diagnostics Department of Medical and Health Sciences Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden in primary care www.liu.se with a focus on cognitive testing Dementia diagnostics primary in care Anna Segernäs Kvitting with a focus on cognitive testing 2019 Linköping University Medical Dissertations No. 1691 Dementia diagnostics in primary care with a focus on cognitive testing Anna Segernäs Kvitting Department of Medical and Health Sciences Linköping University, Sweden Linköping 2019 Anna Segernäs Kvitting, 2019 Cover picture: Picture from Shutterstock images. Printed with permission. Published articles have been reprinted with the permission of the copyright holders. Printed in Sweden by LiU-Tryck, Linköping, Sweden, 2019 ISSN 0345-0082 ISBN 978-91-7685-037-4 To Astrid, Vera and Vilgot To go fast, go alone. To go far, go together. African proverb Contents CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. 1 SVENSK SAMMANFATTNING ................................................................. 2 LIST OF PAPERS ....................................................................................... 4 ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Normative Data Collection and Comparison Of
    NORMATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE ON THE POREH NAMING TEST TO THE BOSTON NAMING TEST ORION R. BIESAN Bachelor of Science in Neuroscience/Psychology Baldwin Wallace University December, 2009 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS IN PSYCHOLOGY at the CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY August, 2012 This thesis has been approved for the Department of Psychology and the College of Graduate Studies by Thesis Committee Chairperson, Dr. Amir Poreh, Ph.D. Department & Date Committee Member, Dr. Naohide Yamamoto, Ph.D. Department & Date Committee Member, Dr. Steve Slane, Ph.D. Department & Date ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To my family, friends, and the professors who supported me and provided me with guidance through my journey for knowledge, thank you! NORMATIVE DATA COLLECTION AND COMPARISON OF PERFORMANCE ON THE POREH NAMING TEST TO THE BOSTON NAMING TEST ORION R. BIESAN ABSTRACT Although word-finding difficulty is commonly self-reported by older adults, there are no clinical instruments able to reliably distinguish normal age- related effects from pathology in word-finding impairments. The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) design and evaluate the validity of the Poreh Naming Test, a novel electronic confrontation naming test used to evaluate naming difficulties in demented populations and (2) to investigate the effect of normal aging word- finding abilities on confrontation naming tests, using both accuracy and response latency as performance indices. A community sample was used with each participant being administered the Boston Naming Test, the Poreh Naming Test, semantic verbal fluency and phonemic verbal fluency tasks. Each participant over the age of 65 or younger participants reporting health problems shown to interfere with confrontation naming test performance also received the St.
    [Show full text]
  • Table E-1. Key Words Used in the Literature Search FTD
    Table e-1. Key words used in the literature search FTD, frontotemporal dementia, FTLD, OR amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, motor pick’s disease, frontal variant FTD, neuron(e) disease, MND, Gehrig* frontal variant dementia, bv-FTD, f-FTD, frontotemporal (lobar) degeneration, presenile dementia AND cognition, mild cognitive impairment, cognition disorders, language disorders, (neuro)psychological tests, language (tests), memory, MMSE, Mini Mental State Examination, theory of mind, Frontal Assessment Battery, Boston Naming, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Stroop test, trail making test, aptitude tests Table e-2. Overview of tests used in the cognitive domains. Cognitive domain Cognitive skills tested within the cognitive domain Frequently used neuropsychological tests within the cognitive domain Social cognition Social perception, recognition of expressed emotions, Ekman 60 faces test, faux pas test, reading the mind in the eyes test, understanding social causality and theory of mind theory of mind, The Awareness of Social Inference Test Verbal memory Recall of unassociated words and short stories Auditory verbal learning test, logical memory test, recognition memory test – words, free and cued selective reminding test Fluency Mental lexicon and executive control Letter fluency, category fluency, design fluency Executive functions Mental flexibility, task-switching, strategic planning and Trail making test part B, stroop test part B, Iowa gambling test, suppression ability Wisconsin card sorting test, hayling sentence completion test, brixton
    [Show full text]