Comparisons between the presentation of paper and pencil and electronic executive function tests to adult populations
-
1
University of Bedfordshire, Psychology Department, United Kingdom
This research investigates the effectiveness of CANTAB tests in adults with acquired brain injury and a comparable normal population with regard to working memory functions. CANTABeclipse™ is a recent development which facilitates the computerised assessment of cognitive deficits as a result of, for example, of frontal lobe damage. CANTAB is made up of 22 subtests in 6 domains. This research investigated the use of the CANTAB test battery (5/22 subtests) versus paper-pencil test equivalents on a normal population and patients suffering from frontal lobe damage. All the tests were administered both in the control group (n=20) and acquired brain injury group (n=10). The results from the control and acquired brain injury group were compared for each of the CANTAB subtests and paper-pencil equivalents. Overall 3/5 CANTAB subtests and 4/5 paper-pencil tests showed significant differences between groups. A larger number of correlations are reported between the CANTAB subtests for whole group over the paper-pencil tests. The diagnostic frontal lobe tests were chosen based on Baddeley’s (1986) model and are shown to be effective both in paper-pencil and electronic (CANTAB) format. The results are seen as promising for the use of electronic test batteries in the identification of frontal lobe deficits.
Conference:
The 20th Annual Rotman Research Institute Conference, The frontal lobes, Toronto, Canada, 22 Mar - 26 Mar, 2010.
Presentation Type:
Poster Presentation
Topic:
Neuropsychology
Citation:
Ertubey
C,
Roberts
P,
Robertson
I and
Teoh
K
(2010). Comparisons between the presentation of paper and pencil and electronic executive function tests to adult populations.
Conference Abstract:
The 20th Annual Rotman Research Institute Conference, The frontal lobes.
doi: 10.3389/conf.fnins.2010.14.00168
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
01 Jul 2010;
Published Online:
01 Jul 2010.
*
Correspondence:
P. Roberts, University of Bedfordshire, Psychology Department, Luton, United Kingdom, pat.roberts@beds.ac.uk