All control subjects from a previous Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery, Form II (LNNB2) normative study were combined with a considerably larger normative sample to produce a composite normative sample of 392 subjects with a mean high school educational level. Revised norms for the LNNB2 were developed based on this sample and were scaled with uniform T-scores to make scale elevations comparable across LNNB2 measures. Differences between the scalewise LNNB2 normative values and published alternatives were highly significant. A critical level and actuarial decision rules for differentiation of normal from neurologically impaired performance level were developed for the LNNB2 using the current empirical norms (86% accuracy with current sample empirical critical level; 89% accuracy with LNNB1 critical level). The normative prediction values of Golden, Purisch, and Hammeke for the LNNB2 were not satisfactory (69% overall, with 45% accuracy among brain damaged sample). There was no significant effect of sex of subject on LNNB2 performance level among the control subjects.
Subtests of the Halstead Category Test (HCT), were factor analyzed for a sample of 1153 right-handed learning disabled subjects aged nine through 14 years. Individual factor analyses were conducted for the total sample, by gender, and each of the 5 age groups. A three factor solution for subtests of the HCT, was found to be appropriate for both genders and each age group. Factor loading of the HCT subtests with tests of the Halstead Reitan Neuropsychological Battery (HRNB) replicated prior research. These data were seen as support for clinical interpretation of the individual HCT factor scores with children.
Factor structure of the C3 and C4 scales of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery, Form I (LNNB) was compared in large samples of patients with neurologic disorder only and psychiatric disorder only. Comparable factorial dimensions were found for both diagnostic groups that were consistent with Lurian theory. Differences between samples on some factors of the C3 scale were conceptualized as effects of lateralized cerebral hemispheric lesions in some of the neurologic subjects that were absent in the psychiatric sample. The LNNB appeared to be operating in a similar manner to identify cognitive deficit among neurologic and psychiatric patients on the LNNB C3 and C4 scales.
A review of reliability, construct and concurrent validity, and psychiatric syndrome analytic studies that employed the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) is presented for the years 1987-1988. This article is the first of two publications that will review the relevant literature for this period. Previous articles in this series have analyzed the literature on the LNNB through 1986.
The booklet version of the Category Test has demonstrated high validation with the original test. Seventy NATO pilots and 61 spouses were administered the booklet version of the Category Test. Ages of volunteers ranged from 18 to 51 and education level ranged from seven to 20 years. There were no significant differences by age, number of language spoken, or country of origin. There was a significant effect for sex and a significant interaction for sex/first language. In general error scores for women were significantly higher than were the error scores for males. American women's error scores were comparable to those of the men. Overall results were similar to those reported for Americans of similar SES. These results suggest that the booklet version of the Category Test may be integrated into European neuropsychological examinations of males of similar SES, but should be interpreted with caution for European females.
Since as many as 15% of the population over 65 may develop Alzheimer's Disease (AD), accurate diagnosis of the disease assumes a great importance in patient management. Objective methods exist which can quantify CT changes seen in elderly patients and indicate the degree of dementia. Similarly, neuropsychological tests have shown an ability to accurately assess patient impairment. It seems rare, however, that radiologists will employ the objective measurements available to them to attempt to quantify dementia. We tested the hypothesis that reliance on a sense of "normal for age" by a radiologist may not accurately indicate degree of patient impairment as measured by neuropsychological testing. Using noncontrast CT and the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) to evaluate 55 normal volunteers and 22 patients with dementia, we found that radiologists employing typical subjective ratings diagnosed only 20% of the patients correctly. These results suggest that a typical radiologist's interpretation of a CT scan as "normal for age" may not accurately reflect the true cognitive functioning of the patient and should be viewed cautiously.
