株式会社極東書店トップ > 商品一覧 > Practitioner's Guide to Evaluating Change with Neuropsychological Assessment Instruments. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2000
商品詳細
Practitioner's Guide to Evaluating Change with Neuropsychological Assessment Instruments. Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2000
・ISBN 978-1-4613-6901-1 paper EUR 149.99
¥40,091.- (税込) ※(※)価格はご注文時の参考価格となります。
納品価格につきましては書籍の入荷時点で確定となります。
版元の原価改定、外国為替の変動等により異なる場合がございますので、予めご了承下さい。
お気に入り
★★★
| 著者・編者 | McCaffrey, Robert J. / Duff, Kevin / Westervelt, Holly James (eds.), |
|---|---|
| シリーズ | (Critical Issues in Neuropsychology) |
| 出版社 | (Springer-Verlag New York Inc., US) |
| 出版年月 | 2012 |
| ページ数 | 552 pp. |
| 言語 | ENG |
| ニュース番号 | <A04-79522> |
解説
The impetus for this volume began with our research in the 1980's involving serial neuropsychological evaluation with various patient populations. At that time, reports on the practice effects associated with routinely utilized clinical neuropsychological instruments were sparse. While test-retest data were available for almost all assessment instruments, this was usually in the form of correlation coefficients and not changes in mean performance between or across assessment periods (see McCaffrey & Westervelt, 1995 for a detailed discussion of these and related issues). Clinical neuropsychological practitioners had few guidelines to assist them in determining if a change in a patient's performance across assessments was due to an intervention, maturation, practice effects, or a combination of factors. This volume represents our efforts at reviewing the literature between 1970 and 1998 and extracting the reported information on practice effects. The tables include the assessment instrument used, information on the subject/patient groups, the sample size (n}, gender, age, intervention, interval between the assessments, scores at both assessment points, and the citation. Those studies that reported data on more than two assessment points are indicated by a notation~ however, any data beyond the second assessment are not reported and the interested reader should refer to the original article. The tables are arranged alphabetically for the most widely used assessment instruments. Those instruments for which there was limited data on practice effects are grouped by "domain" (e. g.