User:BrandiWrites/sandbox

It looks like we should do the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery because this could be an easier choice, from what Dr. Council said. A big problem with this article is obvious its a stub article and needs more information. Here are two references that I found on the PsychINFO on NDSU's libraries database. They are both chapters from books and should be very helpful for our project.

Golden, C. J. (2011). The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Children's Battery. In A. S. Davis, A. S. Davis (Eds.) , Handbook of pediatric neuropsychology (pp. 367-378). New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co.

Walker, J., D'Amato, R. C., & Davis, A. S. (2008). Understanding and using the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test Batteries with children and adults. In R. C. D'Amato, L. C. Hartlage, R. C. D'Amato, L. C. Hartlage (Eds.) , Essentials of neuropsychological assessment: Treatment planning for rehabilitation (2nd ed.) (pp. 127-148). New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co.

Questions for Dr. Council are first do you believe this a good topic for our group? Also a question about the grading, is our Wikipedia project graded by all these assignments each week and a final grade for the overall article?RossMick (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

One problem with the Luria-Nebraska article is that it gives only a brief overview and does not cover all aspects of the topic. For instance, it names the scales but does not describe them at all, and it also does not say much about when, why, or how the battery is administered.

Two possible references for this article are:

Purisch, A. D. (2001). Misconceptions about the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. Neurorehabilitation, 16, 275-280.

Golden, C. J. (2004). The Adult Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. In G. Goldstein, S. R. Beers, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 1: Intellectual and neuropsychological assessment (pp. 133-146). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Two questions I have are: Do you think there is any particular reason so little is written on Wikipedia about this battery (is it especially difficult or just unpopular, etc.)? Is there anything we should be especially aware of or careful about when writing about the Luria-Nebraska? BrandiWrites (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

One problem that this article has is the very small amount and basic information that the article explains about the battery. The article does not tell how it applies and measures certain aspects of neuropsychology.

Two possible references for the site may include:

Golden, C. J. (1987). Screening batteries for the adult and children's versions of the Luria Nebraska Neuropsychological Batteries. Neuropsychology, 1(2), 63-66. doi:10.1037/h0091755

Machinskaya, R. I., Semenova, O. A., Absatova, K. A., & Sugrobova, G. A. (2014). Neurophysiological factors associated with cognitive deficits in children with ADHD symptoms: EEG and neuropsychological analysis. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7(4), 461-473. doi:10.3922/j.psns.2014.4.05

Two Questions I have are: Should we show examples of research that has been done with the Luria-Nebraska Battery? Should we share some history of how the battery came about and developed? Bakasuraryu (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

To Do List

1. Decide what are sections should be for our article. RossMick (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. Skim references for possible section topics, as well as other Wikipedia articles about neuropsychological tests and Dr. Council's comments on the talk page BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
   2. Put the section topics in an understandable order which will make the article clear and easy to understand.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
2. Start working on and assign these sections to group members RossMick (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. All members will commit to specific tasks (right below this To Do List) BrandiWrites (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Each group member will start reviewing literature relevant to the assigned section and taking notes BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. Continue developing outline as needed BrandiWrites (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
   2. Slowly adding information to the outline that can later be turned into paragraphs/section.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
4. A rough draft of any or all sections of the article may be started in the sandbox BrandiWrites (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. These rough drafts can be shared and modified as more information is collected.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
5. We will each write a lead section (Assignment 6) BrandiWrites (talk) 07:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I can start researching the history if that's okay with you guys, and you can both decide what sections you want. If someone's ends up to have a lot more information than the others, we can always break it down further later. So I will gather some more sources for the history, start to go through them, and maybe further develop the outline for that section depending on what I find. Also, in general, I can review grammar, punctuation, etc. in the whole article as needed. BrandiWrites (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine with me Brandi if you want to cover the history. If it's alright, I can take the section about clinical applications and look into different areas that the battery has been used in and has extended too. I can also help with making sure that the article flows from topic to topic and makes sense for the reader.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good guys. I can start working on and doing research for the method section then.RossMick (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Outline

lead section RossMick (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

contents RossMick (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Quick links to each section.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

History RossMick (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Test Development BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Similar types of tests.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Method RossMick (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• The scales BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Reliability and Validity BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
  • What is the test compared to and what is the data.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinical Applications BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• What types of ailments the battery is used for.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• What information can be gathered.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Golden, C. J. (2011). The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Children's Battery. In A. S. Davis, A. S. Davis (Eds.) , Handbook of pediatric neuropsychology (pp. 367-378). New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co. RossMick (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Walker, J., D'Amato, R. C., & Davis, A. S. (2008). Understanding and using the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test Batteries with children and adults. In R. C. D'Amato, L. C. Hartlage, R. C. D'Amato, L. C. Hartlage (Eds.) , Essentials of neuropsychological assessment: Treatment planning for rehabilitation (2nd ed.) (pp. 127-148). New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co. RossMick (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Purisch, A. D. (2001). Misconceptions about the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. Neurorehabilitation, 16, 275-280. BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Golden, C. J. (2004). The Adult Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. In G. Goldstein, S. R. Beers, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 1: Intellectual and neuropsychological assessment (pp. 133-146). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. BrandiWrites (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Schaughency, E. A., Lahey, B. B., Hynd, G. W., Stone, P. A., Piacentini, J. C., & Frick, P. J. (1989). Neuropsychological test performance and the attention deficit disorders: Clinical utility of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision. Journal Of Consulting And Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 112-116.Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nikulina, V., & Widom, C. S. (2013). Child maltreatment and executive functioning in middle adulthood: A prospective examination. Neuropsychology, 27(4), 417-427. Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

Ross MickelsonRossMick (talk) 16:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The Luria-Nebraska Psychological Battery is used to screen and evaluate neuropsychologically impaired individuals. The battery, also abbreviated LNPB, was written by Charles Golden in 1981 and was based on the theories of Alexander Luria. The method in this standardized battery is used to evaluate learning, experience, and cognitive skills. It is comprised of 269 different test items that assess 11 areas of functions, taking from 90 to 150 minutes to complete. It uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to assess brain functioning. Two versions are available for different age levels. The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery for Children (LNNB-C) is best suited for children aged 8 to 12, and the ordinary Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery is most effective on people 13 and older.

Bakasuraryu (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC) The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) is a standardized neuropsychology test used to identify the damaged region of a brain, is used to understand the patient's brain structure, and measure the abilities of a patient. When data is collected from the test, the test giver is able to pin-point causes of behavior that a patient is experiencing. The test itself has different version that are generally use to target specific age groups such as the LNNB-C version that is best when given to patients that are around the ages of 8 to 12. These different versions help to give more accurate tests, along with better details of what the test giver is searching for. The LNNB takes 90 to 150 minutes, and consists of 269 items that include; writing, motor function, expressive language, memory, vision, along with other specific areas. These test are then graded on scales that are correlated to regions of the brain that help to identify what region of the brain that may be damaged.

BrandiWrites (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC) The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery is a test that identifies neuropsychological deficiencies by measuring functioning on fourteen scales. The test was created by Charles Golden and based on previous work by Alexander Luria that emphasizes a qualitative instead of quantitative approach. The original, adult version is for use with ages fifteen and over, while the revision for children can be used with ages eight to twelve; both tests takes two to three hours to administer. A similar test is the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery. The fourteen scales employed by the Luria-Nebraska are motor, rhythm, tactile, visual, receptive speech, expressive speech, writing, reading, arithmetic, memory, intellectual processes, pathognomic, left hemisphere, and right hemisphere. The Luria-Nebraska has been found to be reliable and valid; it is comparable in this sense to the Halstead-Reitan with an ability to differentiate between brain damage and mental illness. The test is used to diagnose and determine the nature of cognitive impairment, including the location of the brain damage, and to help plan treatment.

Group Lead

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) is a standardized test that identifies neuropsychological deficiencies by measuring functioning on fourteen scales. It evaluates learning, experience, and cognitive skills. The test was created by Charles Golden in 1981 and based on previous work by Alexander Luria that emphasizes a qualitative instead of quantitative approach. The original, adult version is for use with ages fifteen and over, while the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery for Children (LNNB-C) can be used with ages eight to twelve; both tests take two to three hours to administer. The LNNB has 269 items divided among fourteen scales, which are motor, rhythm, tactile, visual, receptive speech, expressive speech, writing, reading, arithmetic, memory, intellectual processes, pathognomonic, left hemisphere, and right hemisphere. The test is graded on scales that are correlated to regions of the brain to help identify which region may be damaged.The Luria-Nebraska has been found to be reliable and valid; it is comparable in this sense to other neuropsychological tests in its ability to differentiate between brain damage and mental illness. The test is used to diagnose and determine the nature of cognitive impairment, including the location of the brain damage, to understand the patient's brain structure and abilities, to pinpoint causes of behavior, and to help plan treatment. BrandiWrites (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

History

The purpose of early neuropsychological tests was simply to determine whether or not a person had a brain injury. Although they can still perform this function, modern brain imaging has made it less necessary. Instead, these tests now serve to describe the injury, including its location and the degree of impairment. The ability to perform these functions began with Alexander Luria's original qualitative procedures. The work of this Russian neuropsychologist would become the basis for the theory behind the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. Compared to traditional tests, these procedures were better at determining patients' strengths and weaknesses; however, their standardization was prevented by their lack of fixed content and the fact they had no definite method of scoring or accuracy determination.

Luria's original method, released in 1966, was revised by Christensen in 1975 to describe the procedure more in-depth. This revision made possible a version that combined the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the procedures. In 1977 Charles Golden presented the Luria-South Dakota, a new version of the battery created at the University of South Dakota that combined Luria and Christensen’s works. To develop this version and ensure it covered everything from both Luria and Christensen, Golden first created an exam that took approximately 18 hours to administer and contained nearly 2,000 procedures. From this base items were selectively removed if they were found to lack reliability of validity, be repetitive, be too long, or fail to accurately discriminate a brain injury. Existing interest in Luria’s work made this battery instantly popular, and as it was circulated, demand and research only grew. Western Psychological Services created the current revision, the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. It was published in 1980 in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology and the International Journal of Neuroscience.

The Luria-Nebraska has been the subject of some debate that has split the neuropsychology field. It faced criticism for its combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, the wide variety of its fourteen scales, and the possibility that it did not include enough different neuropsychological skills or did not distinguish brain dysfunction adequately. Large empirical studies have suggested these criticisms are largely unfounded and based on misinformation or lack of understanding of how the test is interpreted. However, these concerns resulted in a decrease in use of the battery, and some negative views of it still persist despite evidence of its reliability and validity. BrandiWrites (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Administration and scoring

For the adult version of this standardized test, used with ages 15 and above, there are 269 items that are scored from 0 to 2. On this continuum a score of 0 represents a normal non-damaged brain and a higher score near 2 depicts brain damage. None of these items measures exactly the same thing, although each of them may have alternative ways of measuring the same behavior. These 269 items are divided among fourteen scales, which are motor, rhythm, tactile, visual, receptive speech, expressive speech, writing, reading, arithmetic, memory, intellectual processes, pathognomonic, left hemisphere, and right hemisphere. The time it takes to administer the task is about 2 to 3 hours. The reason for the long length of time is the several items that need to be tested, and this is also why the test cannot be administered to very young children. By testing the limits of patients' performance, it is then able to make correlations between a normal and damaged brain. There is some discussion on the standardized interruption of the test. RossMick (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC) The children's version of the test is for 8-12 years old. This test has 149 different items that also measure on a continuum from 0 to 2. It also take 2 to 3 hours to administer and measures the same things. RossMick (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliability and validity

Studies have show that the LNNB is stable over time. A study has shown that the lowest test re-test reliability of the LNNB is a .77 and this is within the limitations of clinical tests. RossMick (talk) 23:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Also, studies have combined the Luria-Nebraska Battery with existing tests in psychology, speech, and education to look at the reliability of the battery. This version of the test had 33 scales and by comparing non-brain-injured control groups to brain-injured patients it was found that the test is very effective at discriminating between normal and brain-injured subjects. Studies have shown that the LNNB has yielded an 86% correct hit rate for identifying patients correctly. When looking at the left and right hemisphere scales, the test is based on the assumption that the left hemisphere is verbally dominant and composed of the motor and tactile scales that represent right-hand sensory/motor performance while the right hemisphere consists of items representing left-hand sensory/ motor performance. When looking at lateralization reports of the test, it yields an average hit rate of 78% on comparison of left and right scales with the highest hit rate being 92%. Also, when looking at localization of chronic hospitalized patients with injuries in the frontal, sensorimotor, temporal, and parietal-occipital areas, the test was 88% effective in localizing the brain damage, but the limit to this report was a small sample size of 60 patients. RossMick (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Applications

Applications of the LNNB are generally seen in clinical settings such as hospitals, counseling, and research. Research has shown its shorter testing time, cost to administer, and effectiveness allow for cost-efficient and reliable results. The LNNB has been used to determine brain functions after trauma to the brain occurs and to pin-point what mental disorder is present. Through its development and revision, the battery has also been shown to aid in presenting other underlying ailments that could not be detected by other sources. In some cases the LNNB has been seen to show sensitivity to more subtle abnormalities in brain functioning, which researchers did not expect. Due to its ability to target the damage of the brain, if any, as well as the mental disorder, the LNNB is useful in finding treatment options, assessing research, and aiding in choosing research participants. Disorders that the LNNB has been seen to detect include schizophrenia, borderline personality, post-traumatic stress disorder, brain trauma, epilepsy tumor, metabolic problems, and degenerative disorders. Bakasuraryu (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)