↓ Skip to main content

Neuropsychological Assessment of Individuals with Brain Tumor: Comparison of Approaches Used in the Classification of Impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in oncology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Neuropsychological Assessment of Individuals with Brain Tumor: Comparison of Approaches Used in the Classification of Impairment
Published in
Frontiers in oncology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fonc.2015.00056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toni Maree Dwan, Tamara Ownsworth, Suzanne Chambers, David G. Walker, David H. K. Shum

Abstract

Approaches to classifying neuropsychological impairment after brain tumor vary according to testing level (individual tests, domains, or global index) and source of reference (i.e., norms, controls, and pre-morbid functioning). This study aimed to compare rates of impairment according to different classification approaches. Participants were 44 individuals (57% female) with a primary brain tumor diagnosis (mean age = 45.6 years) and 44 matched control participants (59% female, mean age = 44.5 years). All participants completed a test battery that assesses pre-morbid IQ (Wechsler adult reading test), attention/processing speed (digit span, trail making test A), memory (Hopkins verbal learning test-revised, Rey-Osterrieth complex figure-recall), and executive function (trail making test B, Rey-Osterrieth complex figure copy, controlled oral word association test). Results indicated that across the different sources of reference, 86-93% of participants were classified as impaired at a test-specific level, 61-73% were classified as impaired at a domain-specific level, and 32-50% were classified as impaired at a global level. Rates of impairment did not significantly differ according to source of reference (p > 0.05); however, at the individual participant level, classification based on estimated pre-morbid IQ was often inconsistent with classification based on the norms or controls. Participants with brain tumor performed significantly poorer than matched controls on tests of neuropsychological functioning, including executive function (p = 0.001) and memory (p < 0.001), but not attention/processing speed (p > 0.05). These results highlight the need to examine individuals' performance across a multi-faceted neuropsychological test battery to avoid over- or under-estimation of impairment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 22%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 21 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 27 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 22%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,604,528
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#8,179
of 22,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,592
of 275,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#52
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,805 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 275,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.