| Title |
RBANS Validity Indices: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychology Review, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11065-018-9377-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert D. Shura, Timothy W. Brearly, Jared A. Rowland, Sarah L. Martindale, Holly M. Miskey, Kevin Duff |
| Abstract |
Neuropsychology practice organizations have highlighted the need for thorough evaluation of performance validity as part of the neuropsychological assessment process. Embedded validity indices are derived from existing measures and expand the scope of validity assessment. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) is a brief instrument that quickly allows a clinician to assess a variety of cognitive domains. The RBANS also contains multiple embedded validity indicators. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the utility of those indicators to assess performance validity. A systematic search was completed, resulting in 11 studies for synthesis and 10 for meta-analysis. Data were synthesized on four indices and three subtests across samples of civilians, service members, and veterans. Sufficient data for meta-analysis were only available for the Effort Index, and related analyses indicated optimal cutoff scores of ≥1 (AUC = .86) and ≥ 3 (AUC = .85). However, outliers and heterogeneity were present indicating the importance of age and evaluation context. Overall, embedded validity indicators have shown adequate diagnostic accuracy across a variety of populations. Recommendations for interpreting these measures and future studies are provided. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 80 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 19 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,216,878
of 25,738,558 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychology Review
#175
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,705
of 343,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychology Review
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,738,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.