| 1. |
- Egeland, Jens, et al.
(author)
-
Following international trends while subject to past traditions : neuropsychological test use in the Nordic countries
- 2016
-
In: Clinical Neuropsychologist (Neuropsychology, Development and Cognition. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1385-4046 .- 1744-4144. ; 30, s. 1479-1500
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Historically, the neuropsychological test traditions of the four Nordic countries have spanned from the flexible and qualitative tradition of Luria-Christensen to the quantitative large battery approach of Halstead and Klove-Matthews. This study reports current test use and discusses whether these traditions still influence attitudes toward test use and choice of tests. Method: The study is based on survey data from 702 Nordic neuropsychologists. Results: The average participant used 9 tests in a standard assessment, and 25 tests overall in their practice. Test use was moderated by nationality, competence level, practice profile, and by attitude toward test selection. Participants who chose their tests flexibly used fewer tests than those adhering to the flexible battery approach, but had fewer tests from which to choose. Testing patients with psychiatric disorders was associated with using more tests. IQ, memory, attention, and executive function were the domains with the largest utilization rate, while tests of motor, visual/spatial, and language were used by few. There is a lack of academic achievement tests. Screening tests played a minor role in specialized assessments, and symptom validity tests were seldom applied on a standard basis. Most tests were of Anglo-American origin. Conclusions: New test methods are implemented rapidly in the Nordic countries, but test selection is also characterized by the dominating position of established and much researched tests. The Halstead-Reitan and Luria traditions are currently weak, but national differences in size of test batteries seem to be influenced by these longstanding traditions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Egeland, Jens, et al.
(author)
-
Questionnaire Use Among Nordic Neuropsychologists : Shift From Assessing Personality to Checking Ecological Validity of Neuropsychological Assessments?
- 2017
-
In: Professional psychology, research and practice. - : American Psychological Association (APA). - 0735-7028 .- 1939-1323. ; 48:4, s. 227-235
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The core method of neuropsychologists has been to collect structured samples of behavior through standardized tests. Information that cannot be elicited through tests may be gathered by questionnaires asking questions about behavior. Tests may deconstruct cognitive function precisely, but lack the ecological validity of questionnaires. Thus, many neuropsychologists have advocated more use of questionnaires, but it is not known whether professional practice has changed. Until recently, personality instruments were the only widespread questionnaires in frequent use among neuropsychologists. We studied the inventory use of 702 Nordic neuropsychologists. The most used questionnaires are listed, and differences between countries are analyzed. In addition, the questionnaires are grouped with regard to whether they map cognition, behavior not observable during consultations, emotional symptoms, personality, or are diagnostic tools. The study showed an average use of 8.4 questionnaires (SD 6.4), with a range from 4.5 in Finland to 11 in Norway. Emotional symptoms were most frequently assessed, closely followed by questionnaires of cognition. There was a very low usage rate of personality measures, even though the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2; Hathaway & McKinley, 1951) and other measures have been available in the Nordic countries for years. Questionnaire use correlated highly with test use. Frequency of assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders mediated high questionnaire use, whereas assessing patients with neurological conditions predicted below average use of questionnaires. The study indicates a shift from assessing personality to using questionnaires to check the validity of test results. The shift is probably mediated by the expansion of clinical neuropsychology into the field of psychiatry.
|
|
| 3. |
- Westergren, Albert, et al.
(author)
-
Convergent and discriminant validity of the Minimal Eating Observation Form - version II : a cross-sectional study
- 2024
-
In: BMC Geriatrics. - : BioMed Central Ltd.. - 1471-2318. ; 24:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND : The Minimal Eating Observation Form - Version II (MEOF-II) is a brief and easy to use screening tool for eating difficulties, that is psychometrically robust. The aim of this study was to explore convergent (measuring similar constructs) and discriminant (measuring somewhat different constructs) validity of the MEOF-II to other validated dysphagia specific, activity and participation related instruments. METHODS : In this cross-sectional study, participants (n = 100, mean age 72, n = 42 women), diagnosed with either chronic pulmonary disease, Parkinson´s disease, Multiple Sclerosis, or stroke were recruited from rehabilitation centres. Patient-reported outcomes and clinical-rated assessments, capturing eating ability in general and swallowing in specific, included: The Dysphagia Handicap Index (DHI), the 4-question test (4QT), the Minimal Eating Observation Form - II, the Volume - Viscosity Swallow Test (V-VST), Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) documented according to the Penetration-Aspiration Scale (PAS). Type of oral intake was documented using the Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). Activities in daily living was assessed with Barthel index (BI). Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations. The MEOF-II total score was hypothesised to have moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.3) with the other assessments, besides with PAS and FOIS (weak correlations, r < 0.3). RESULTS : In total 78 participants had any type of eating difficulties (MEOF-II), 69 reported dysphagia (4QT), 62 had dysphagia according to V-VST, 29 showed evidence of penetration/aspiration (PAS), and 31 participants had decreased oral intake ability (FOIS). The MEOF-II total score had moderate correlations with DHI, BI, 4QT, V-VST volume, and weak correlations with V-VST dysphagia and viscosity, PAS, and FOIS. Comparing a prior hypothesised correlation strengths against empirical findings showed that 83% of the hypothesised correlations were correct. CONCLUSIONS : The MEOF-II is a holistic and objective screening tool that can indicate the need for further assessment and corresponds well with the persons' subjective experiences. MEOF-II does not specifically assess the risk for penetration/aspiration.
|
|
