Abstract
Neuropsychologists are increasingly asked to make judgments regarding treatment options and rehabilitation strategies in addition to evaluating the degree and scope of neuropsychological impairment following acquired brain injuries. The capacity to make informed clinical decisions relies upon research investigating the relationships between neuropsychological and psychosocial status (i.e., ecological validity). Unfortunately, much of this research employs exploratory analyses, an approach that can lead to theoretical ambiguity and ad-hoc interpretations. The current availability and accessibility of analytical tools, like structural equation modeling (SEM), however, permits the testing of specific hypotheses regarding ecological validity and promotes a-priori theory development. In the current study, a theory-driven model of the ecological validity of a neurocognitive assessment was tested against data obtained from individuals with acquired brain injury using SEM. The results provide confirmatory evidence for the ecological validity of neurocognitive constructs and empirical support for a theory-driven analytical approach to ecological validity research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth, J. T., Macciocchi, S. N., & Diamond, P. T. (1999). Mild head injury: Current research and clinical issues. In M. Rosenthal, E. R.Griffith, J. S. Dreutzer, & B. Pentland (Eds.), Rehabilitation of the adult and child with traumatic brain injury (3rd ed., pp. 471–502). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.
Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgercombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13, 181–197.
Cullum, C. M., Kuck, J., & Ruff, R. M. (1990). Neuropsychological assessment of traumatic brain injury in adults. In E. D. Bigler (Ed.), Traumatic brain injury (pp. 129–157). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Cushman, L. A. (1989). Correspondence between neuropsychological and functional ratings of perceptual neglect. Neuropsychology, 3, 103–109.
Dikmen, S., Machamer, J., Savoie, T., & Temkin, N. (1996). Life quality outcome in head injury. In I. Grant, & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 552–573). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Drake, A., Gray, N., Yoder, S., Pramuka, M., & Llewellyn, M. (2000). Factors predicting return to work following mild traumatic brain injury: A discriminant analysis. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15, 1103–1112.
Evans, J. J., Wilson, B. A., Needham, P., & Brentnall, S. (2003). Who makes good use of memory aids? Results of a survey of people with acquired brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 925–935.
Farias, S. T., Harrell, E., Neumann, C., & Houtz, A. (2003). The relationship between neuropsychological performance and daily functioning in individuals with Alzheimer’s disease: Ecological validity of neuropsychological tests. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 655–672.
Fleming, J. M., Strong, J., & Ashton, R. (1996). Self-awareness of deficits in adults with traumatic brain injury: How best to measure? Brain Injury, 10, 1–15.
Gronwall, D. (1987). Advances in the assessment of attention and information processing after head injury. In H. S. Levin, J. Grafman, & H. M. Eisenberg (Eds.), Neurobehavioral recovery from head injury (pp. 355–371). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gruber, O., & Goschke, T. (2004) Executive control emerging from dynamic interactions between brain systems mediating language, working memory and attentional processes. Acta Psychologica, 115, 105–121.
Heilbronner, R. L., Millsaps, C., Azrin, R., & Mittenberg, W. (1993). Psychometric properties of the Patient Competency Rating Scale. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 15, 67.
Johansson, U., & Bernspång, B. (2001). Predicting return to work after brain injury using occupational therapy assessments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 474–480.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
Kreutzer, J. S., Marwitz, J. H., Walker, W., Sander, A., Sherer, M., Bogner, J., et al. (2003). Moderating factors in return to work and job stability after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 18, 128–138.
Leathem, J. M., Murphy, L. J., & Flen, R. A. (1998). Self and informant-ratings on the Patient Competency Rating Scale in patients with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 694–705.
Lezak, M. D. (1976). Neuropsychological assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Manoach, D. S., Sandson, T. A., & Weintraub, S. (1995). The developmental social-emotional processing disorder is associated with right hemisphere abnormalities. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology and Behavioral Neurology, 8, 99–105.
Marsh, N. V., & Knight, R. G. (1991). Relationship between cognitive deficits and social skill after head injury. Neuropsychology, 5, 107–117.
McHugo, G. J., Drake, R. E., Brunette, M. F., Xie, H., Essock, S. M., & Green, A. I. (2006). Enhancing validity in co-occurring disorders treatment research. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32, 655–665.
McSweeny, A. J., Grant, I., Heaton, R. K., Prigatano, G. P., & Adams, K. M. (1985). Relationship of neuropsychological status to everyday functioning in healthy and chronically ill persons. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 281–291.
Miller, E. (1970). Simple and choice reaction time following severe head injury. Cortex, 6, 121–127.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620.
Platt, J. R. (1964) Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–353.
Powell, D. H., Kaplan, E. F., Whitla, D., Weintraub, S., Catlin, R., & Funkenstein, H. H. (1993). MicroCog assessment of cognitive functioning. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace & Company, pp. 1–15.
Prigatano, G. P. (1986). Neuropsychological rehabilitation after brain injury. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Prigatano, G. P. (1989). Work, love, and play after brain injury. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 414–431.
Prigatano, G. P., Altman, I. M., & O’Brien, K. P. (1990). Behavioral limitations that brain injured patients tend to underestimate. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4, 163–176.
Prigatano, G. P., & Klonoff, P. S. (1998). A clinician’s rating scale for evaluating impaired self-awareness and denial of disability after brain injury. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 56–67.
Raskin, S. A., Mateer, C. A., & Tweeten, R. (1998). Neuropsychological assessment of individuals with mild traumatic brain injury. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 21–30.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Lawrence Earlbaum & Associates: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, pp. 6–56.
Sarno, S., Erasmus, L., Lipp, B., & Schlaegel, W. (2003). Multisensory integration after traumatic brain injury: A reaction time study between pairings of vision, touch, and audition. Brain Injury, 17, 413–426.
Sbordone, R. J. (1996). Ecological validity: Some critical issues for the neuropsychologist. In R.J. Sbordone, & C.D. Long (Eds.), Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing (pp. 15–40). Delray Beach, FL: GR Press/St Lucie Press, Inc.
Sbordone, R. J., & Guilmette, T. J. (1999). Ecological validity: Prediction of everyday and vocational functioning from neuropsychological test data. In J. J. Sweet (Ed.), Forensic neuropsychology: Fundamentals and practice. Studies on neuropsychology, development, and cognition. (pp. 227–254). Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.
Sbordone, R. J., Liter, J. C., & Pettler-Jennings, P. (1995). Recovery of function following severe traumatic brain injury: A retrospective 10-year follow up. Brain Injury, 9, 285–299.
Sbordone, R. J., & Purisch, A. D. (1996). Hazards of blind analysis of neuropsychological test data in assessing cognitive disability: The role of psychological pain and other confounding factors. Neurorehabilitation, 7, 15–26.
Shamary-Tsoory, S. G., Tomer, R., Berger, B. D., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2003). Characterization of empathy deficits following prefrontal brain damage: The role of the right ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 324–337.
Stout, J. C., Ready, R. E., Grace, J., Malloy, P. F., & Paulsen, J. S. (2003a). Factor analysis of the Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe). Assessment, 10, 79–85.
Stout, J. C., Wyman, M. F., Johnson, S. A., Peavy, G. M., & Salmon, D. P. (2003b). Frontal behavioral syndromes and functional status in probable Alzheimer disease. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 11, 683–686.
Vogel, J. J., Bowers, C. A., & Vogel, D. S. (2003). Cerebral lateralization of spatial abilities: A meta-analysis. Brain & Cognition, 52, 197–204.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Williams, J. M. (1996). A practical model of everyday memory assessment. In R. Sbordone, & C. Long (Eds.), Ecological validity of neuropsychological testing (pp. 129–145). Delray Beach, FL: GR Press/St. Lucie Press.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Dr. R. Sbordone, for his helpful comments and consultation regarding this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: Items Removed from the PCRS
Appendix B: Factor Structure Matrix for the Patient Competency Rating Scale
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kieffaber, P.D., Marcoulides, G.A., White, M.H. et al. Modeling the Ecological Validity of Neurocognitive Assessment in Adults with Acquired Brain Injury. J Clin Psychol Med Settings 14, 206–218 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-007-9075-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-007-9075-6