NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT LAB

PAUL JONES, ED.D.
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS

____________________________________________________________________

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE:

Series Three

Participants

Participation in this study series was solicited from students enrolled in each of two sections of an upper division educational psychology course in the spring 1999 semester. The course is required in the teacher licensure program, and the syllabus for each of these two sections included a course requirement for participation in a research activity. Serving as a subject in studies in the Neuropsychological Assessment Lab was one of the alternatives offered to meet the research requirement. A total of 88 students provided data for the series three studies.

With the instrumentation used in this series of studies, an initial screening is typical (Gastaldo, Reeves, Levinson, & Wegner, 1997; Schlegel, Gilliland, & Crabtree, 1992) to remove apparently invalid datasets before proceeding with detailed analysis. Data files are assembled in a spreadsheet and inspected to identify patterns indicating that the participant had responded randomly, and/or responses indicating that the participant did not understand the instructions prior to beginning the test (e.g. significant number of response lapses and/or premature responses). After elimination of these files, data from a total of 82 participants remained for continuing analysis.

Demographic Information for the research sample is provided below:

GENDER

		n		%
Female		60		73
Male		22		27

AGE RANGE

			n			%
18-25			54			66
26-35			16			19
36-45			9			11
45 & above			3			4

PROGRAM EMPHASIS

			n			%
elementary			45			55
secondary			26			32
K-12			5			6
other			6			7

GRADE POINT AVERAGE

			n			%
2.4 & below			6			7
2.5-2.9			33			40
3.0-3.4			27			33
3.5 & above			16			20

____________________________________________________________________

The demographic data appear typical for upper division teacher education students.

____________________________________________________________________

Procedure

To complete the research assignment, each participant scheduled a one-half hour appointment in the lab which involved completion of demographic information, review of human subjects consent forms, and completion of the test instruments. Equipment available in the lab allowed a maximum of two participants to be tested at the same time. Supervision and guidance for the participants was provided by the lab research assistant, Ms. Susan Phillips. Sessions began in February of 1999 and were completed in May of 1999.

Two cognitive processing tests were used without adaptation from a package of instruments organized as a Tester's Workbench (TWB), developed by the Office of Military Performance Assessment Technology. The common feature in these scales is highly-structured, repetitive information processing tasks with well-defined stimuli and simple response modes. Several scores are available for each scale including task accuracy, mean response time for accurate responses (ms), and an efficiency score defined as the number of correct responses per minute. Participants in the series three studies completed a simple two-choice reaction time test and five trials (three with predictable delay and two with intermittent delay) of a procedural reaction time test. In the framework of the contemporary PASS theory using Luria's model of neuropsychological functions, these scales appear to be measuring the "attention" function.

The series three participants also completed an adaptation of the Mood Scale 2, a measure of personality state included with the ANAM/TWB batteries, a special adaptation of the ANAM/TWB grammatical reasoning scale, and two of the planning subtests from the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS). The CAS scales, planned codes and matching numbers, were administered and handscored by the research assistant. All other scales were administered and score via computer.

The actual test trial for each of the computer-based cognitive measures was immediately preceded by a practice trial, intended to familiarize the subject with each scale. Stimuli in the practice trial were comparable, but fewer in number, than those used in the actual test. Feedback (correct or incorrect) was provided after each stimulus in the practice trial. The number of items, stimulus duration, and time allowed for response in the test trials were chosen to facilitate comparison of the participant's scores to results in published studies. CAS scales were administered using standard procedures.

____________________________________________________________________

References

Gastaldo, E., Reeves, D., Levinson, D., & Wenger, C.B. (1997). ANAM normative data: USMC-1995 hyponatremia outbreak studies. San Diego, CA: National Cognitive Recovery Foundation.

Naglieri, J.A., & Das, J.P. (1997). Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, ILL: Riverside Publishing

Schlegel, R.E., Gilliland, K., & Crabtree, M.S. (1992). Development of the UTC-PAB Normative Database: Technical Report. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.

____________________________________________________________________

SERIES THREE STUDIES

Guide to Reports

____________________________________________________________________