10/20/2005Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids1 Who Do They Think Theyre Kidding Use of the Word Memory...
-
Upload
riley-lowe -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of 10/20/2005Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids1 Who Do They Think Theyre Kidding Use of the Word Memory...
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 1
Who Do They Think Who Do They Think They’re KiddingThey’re Kidding
Use of the Word Memory Test with Use of the Word Memory Test with Children: Follow-up ResultsChildren: Follow-up Results
Martin L. Rohling, Ph.D.Martin L. Rohling, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Dept. of PsychologyAssociate Professor, Dept. of Psychology
University of South Alabama, Mobile, ALUniversity of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 2
Which kids are we going to examine?
Data Source 1: Psychological Clinic on the campus of the University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. (n = 55)
Data Source 2: Randi Most, private practice in Jacksonville, FL. (n = 54)
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 3
Demographics: AgeM = 10.0 (sd = 3.1)
Group Sample N Mean SD
Age 6-7 27 6.4 .09
Age 8-9 26 8.5 .10
Age 10-12 30 11.0 .16
Age 13-17 26 14.3 1.26
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 4
Demographics: Gender
Group Male Female % Male
Age 6-7 15 12 56%
Age 8-9 13 13 50%
Age 10-12 22 8 73%
Age 13-17 13 13 50%
Overall 63 46 58%
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 5
Reasons for Referral
Group N % of Sample
ADHD 37 34%
LD 22 20%
LD/ADHD 7 6%
Dev. Delay 13 12%
MR 4 4%
Psych Sx 9 8%
Gifted 3 3%
Volunteer 14 13%
Total 109 ---
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 6
Adult Data
Young Adults <= 25 y/oN = 49
Age = 21.6 (sd = 1.7)
Ed = 14.3 (sd = 1.9)
Adults > 25 y/oN = 50
Age = 33.3 (sd = 10.7)
Ed = 14.3 (sd = 2.3)
12 12.110 10.1
1 1.01 1.0
11 11.164 64.699 100.0
Count PercentADHDLDLD/ADHDMRPsychNoneTotal
Final Diagnosis
Referral Question
44 44.426 26.3
7 7.11 1.04 4.0
17 17.299 100.0
Count PercentADHDLDLD/ADHDMRPsychVolunteerTotal
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 7
Post Assessment Dx Classification
Group N % of Sample
ADHD 29 27%
LD 15 14%
LD/ADHD 5 5%
Dev. Delay 15 14%
MR 3 3%
Psych Sx 9 8%
Gifted 1 1%
No Diagnosis 32 29%
Total 109 ---
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 8
Age Effect on WMT IR & DR(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)
Means (SD)
Age 6-7 = 15 (31)
Age 8-9 = 31 (28)
Age 10-12 = 36 (23)
Age 13-17 = 46 (13)
Age 18-25 = 41 (26)
Age > 25 = 44 (20)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld A
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT Effort1 TEffect: Age Grp3
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 9
27 80.9 12.2 2.3
26 86.2 11.8 2.3
30 87.9 11.8 2.2
26 92.2 7.0 1.4
43 91.2 11.3 1.7
45 92.3 9.8 1.5
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Child age 6-7
Child age 8-9
Child age 10-12
Child Age 13-17
Yg Adult
Adult
Means Table for WMT IR%Effect: Age Grp3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cell
Mean
Child
age 6
-7
Child
age 8
-9
Child
age 1
0-1
2
Child
Age 1
3-1
7
Yg A
dult
Adult
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT IR%Effect: Age Grp3
27 78.9 16.2 3.1
26 88.8 14.6 2.9
30 91.5 10.4 1.9
26 95.6 5.4 1.1
43 92.3 13.0 2.0
45 93.6 9.0 1.3
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Child age 6-7
Child age 8-9
Child age 10-12
Child Age 13-17
Yg Adult
Adult
Means Table for WMT DR%Effect: Age Grp3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cell
Mean
Child
age 6
-7
Child
age 8
-9
Child
age 1
0-1
2
Child
Age 1
3-1
7
Yg A
dult
Adult
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT DR%Effect: Age Grp3
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 10
Age Effect on WMT MC & PA(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)
Means (SD)
Age 6-7 = 26 (14)
Age 8-9 = 37 (10)
Age 10-12 = 52 (13)
Age 13-17 = 46 (14)
Age 18-25 = 48 (13)
Age > 25 = 45 (14)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld A
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 11
9 44.4 22.6 7.5
9 62.8 18.0 6.0
12 87.9 20.8 6.0
22 76.8 22.2 4.7
39 79.2 22.1 3.5
44 75.1 21.9 3.3
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Child age 6-7
Child age 8-9
Child age 10-12
Child Age 13-17
Yg Adult
Adult
Means Table for WMT MC%Effect: Age Grp3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cell
Mean
Child
age 6
-7
Child
age 8
-9
Child
age 1
0-1
2
Child
Age 1
3-1
7
Yg A
dult
Adult
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT MC%Effect: Age Grp3
9 42.2 27.4 9.1
9 59.4 16.7 5.6
12 80.8 22.1 6.4
22 73.0 26.2 5.6
38 78.4 20.9 3.4
42 73.2 23.3 3.6
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Child age 6-7
Child age 8-9
Child age 10-12
Child Age 13-17
Yg Adult
Adult
Means Table for WMT PA%Effect: Age Grp3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cell
Mean
Child
age 6
-7
Child
age 8
-9
Child
age 1
0-1
2
Child
Age 1
3-1
7
Yg A
dult
Adult
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT PA%Effect: Age Grp3
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 12
Age Effect on WMT Del. FR(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)
Means (SD)
Age 6-7 = 31 (10)
Age 8-9 = 39 (14)
Age 10-12 = 47 (12)
Age 13-17 = 47 (13)
Age 18-25 = 48 (14)
Age > 25 = 48 (14)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld A
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 13
9 27.9 14.5 4.8
8 39.7 20.1 7.1
12 51.3 18.2 5.2
21 51.9 19.3 4.2
37 53.3 20.9 3.4
39 53.2 20.2 3.2
Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.
Child age 6-7
Child age 8-9
Child age 10-12
Child Age 13-17
Yg Adult
Adult
Means Table for WMT DFR%Effect: Age Grp3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld A
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for WMT DFR%Effect: Age Grp3
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 14
Percent Below Cutoff for Exaggeration
Group % Exaggerate
Age 6-7 54%
Age 8-9 27%
Age 10-12 20%
Age 13-17 12%
Yg Adult (18-25) 21%
Adult ( Age > 25) 20%
Total Sample 25%
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 15
No Age Effect on OTBM(T Scores for all cognitive ability tests normed by age group)
Means (SD)
Age 6-7 = 46 (6)
Age 8-9 = 47 (10)
Age 10-12 = 47 (9)
Age 13-17 = 47 (9)
Age 18-25 = 53 (7)
Age > 25 = 49 (9)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld A
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 16
No Age Effect on FSIQ(FSIQ for Wechsler IQs normed by age group)
Means (SD)
Age 6-7 = 98 (12)
Age 8-9 = 95 (21)
Age 10-12 = 98 (18)
Age 13-17 = 96 (18)
Age 18-25 = 108 (16)
Age > 25 = 99 (15)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld a
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 17
Type of Measure (Ability vs. Effort) by Age Group
Age Groups n OTBM Effort
Age 6-7 27 46 15
Age 8-9 26 48 31
Age 10-12 30 47 36
Age 13-17 26 45 46
Yg Adult 43 56 41
Adult 45 50 44
T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain injured adults. OTBM generated from normative data published in the administration manual for each test included.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Child
age
6-7
Child
age
8-9
Child
age
10-
12
Child
Age
13-
17
Yg A
dult
Adul
t
WMT Effort1 T
OTBM-2
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 18
IQ Effect on Mean IR & DR
Age Groups Low High
Age 6-7 4 25
Age 8-9 25 42
Age 10-12 26 49
Age 13-17 41 53
Yg Adult 22 47
Adult 31 51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cel
l Mea
n
Chi
ld a
ge 6
-7
Chi
ld a
ge 8
-9
Chi
ld a
ge 1
0-12
Chi
ld a
ge 1
3-17
Yg
Adu
lt
Adu
lt
Cell
High
Low
T Scores generated with 97 brain injured adults as normative group
FSIQ was split into High and Low at 100.
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 19
IQ Effect on WMT Diagnostic Groups
N % of Group Age
Gen-Low IQ 31 52% 11.3
Exag-Low IQ 29 48% 9.0
Gen-High IQ 35 80% 10.1
Exag-High IQ 9 20% 7.6
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 20
IQ EffectPatients Volunteers
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
WM
T DR
%
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140FSIQ
Y = 47.323 + .424 * X; R 2̂ = .223
Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
WM
T DR
%
95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145FSIQ
Y = 96.951 + .003 * X; R 2̂ = 1.548E-4
Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 21
Age EffectPatients Volunteers
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
WM
T DR
%4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
AgeY = 89.762 + .786 * X; R 2̂ = .344
Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
WM
T DR
%
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Age
Y = 67.704 + 1.966 * X; R 2̂ = .183
Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 22
Multiple Regression Results:IQ & Age Effects on WMT Effort Measures
Independent effects for IQ and Age on mean T score for effort on IR & DR.Results replicated & of similar magnitude when analyzing other effort measures (i.e, MC, PA), as well as DFR.
105
3
.66
.44
.42
19.54
Count
Num. Missing
R
R Squared
Adjusted R Squared
RMS Residual
Regression SummaryWMT Effort1 T vs. 2 IndependentsInclusion criteria: All Kids from clinicdata.svd
-81.03 12.91 -81.03 -6.27 <.0001
.80 .11 .53 7.16 <.0001
3.56 .65 .41 5.51 <.0001
Coefficient Std. Error Std. Coeff. t-Value P-Value
Intercept
FSIQ
Age
Regression CoefficientsWMT Effort1 T vs. 2 IndependentsInclusion criteria: All Kids from clinicdata.svd
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 23
Effect of Diagnosis on WMT Effort Measures
Dx Groups n M sd
ADHD 29 20 28
Gifted 1 56 --
LD 15 40 16
LD/ADHD 5 30 37
MR 3 - 43 6
Psych 9 37 14
Dev. Delay 15 25 26
No Dx 32 47 13
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Cell M
ean
AD
HD
Brig
ht &
Gift
ed
LD
LD/A
DH
D MR
Psy
ch
Mix
Dev
Del
ay Non
e
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 24
Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis
As much as possible, categories for reason for referral were the same as those for primary diagnosis.This allowed for a measure of congruence
between reason for referral and diagnosis.
Overall congruence was greater for children than it was for adults.Congruence for Children = 58%Congruence for Adults = 44%
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 25
Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis
Incongruence between referral and diagnosis was significantly different for the ADHD and LD when children and adults were examined separately.ADHD - Only 27% of adults referred were
diagnosed ADHD, whereas 67% of children were diagnosed.
LD – Only 35% of adults referred were diagnosed LD, whereas 59% of children were diagnosed, primarily with dyslexia.
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 26
Effect of Diagnosis on Kids’ Overall Test Battery Mean (OTBM)
Dx Groups n M sd
ADHD 32 44 8
LD 17 45 7
LD/ADHD 6 43 5
MR 3 30 4
Psych 9 51 5
Dev. Delay 15 43 5
No Dx 34 51 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Cel
l Mea
n
AD
HD LD
LD/A
DH
D MR
Psy
ch
Mix
Dev
Del
ay
Non
e
Cell
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 27
Diagnostic Group by Type of Measure in Children
Dx Groups n OTBM Effort
ADHD 29 44 20
LD 15 45 40
LD/ADHD 5 43 30
Psych 9 51 37
T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain injured adults. OTBM generated from normative data published in the administration manual for each test included.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ADHD LD LD/ADHD Psych
WMT Effort1 TOTBM-2
10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 28
Conclusions
The WMT when used with children 12 y/o and under may need special cut scores for accurate detection of invalid performance. Age, Overall Cognitive ability (e.g., IQ), and
pathology (e.g., ADHD).
What corrections need to be made can’t yet be determined from the available data
Alternative tests may prove to be a better solution to SVT when examining kids (e.g., MSVT)