Normative and retest data on the RBANS cortical/subcortical index in older adults

Several neuropsychological disorders have been classified as having either "cortical" or "subcortical" profiles; however, little information is available about the frequency of these profiles in the normal population or their stability on retesting. Therefore, the current study c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology 2007-11, Vol.29 (8), p.854-859
Main Authors: Duff, Kevin, Schoenberg, Mike R., Mold, James W., Scott, James G., Adams, Russell L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aging - physiology
Aging - psychology
Biological and medical sciences
Brain - physiology
Brain - physiopathology
Cognition - physiology
Cognition Disorders - diagnosis
Cognition Disorders - physiopathology
Cognition Disorders - psychology
Cohort Studies
Geriatric Assessment - methods
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Medical sciences
Neuropsychological Tests
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Residence Characteristics
Techniques and methods
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Several neuropsychological disorders have been classified as having either "cortical" or "subcortical" profiles; however, little information is available about the frequency of these profiles in the normal population or their stability on retesting. Therefore, the current study calculated the cortical/subcortical profile index from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in a large cohort (n = 793) of older adult primary care patients. The frequency of these profiles was examined, as was their stability across 1- and 2-year periods. Cortical profiles were quite common in this sample, with 37% having 10 or more points on this index. Stability of these index scores across 1 and 2 years was moderate (r = .58-.61). Although the utility of this index needs to be investigated in clinical samples, practitioners should use caution when interpreting these types of indicator as pathognomonic for the presence of disease.
ISSN:1380-3395
1744-411X
DOI:10.1080/13803390601147629