Literature DB >> 29265866

Test accommodations for individuals with neurological conditions completing the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery: An evaluation of frequency and appropriateness.

Susan Magasi1, Mark Harniss2, David S Tulsky3, Matthew L Cohen4, Robert K Heaton5, Allen W Heinemann6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: First, to evaluate the frequency with which individuals with neurological conditions require test administration accommodations for the NIH Toolbox-Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB). Second, to evaluate the appropriateness of accommodations provided by administrators, including adherence to NIHTB-CB Reasonable Accommodations Guidelines.
METHOD: Adults with traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, or stroke (n = 604) completed the NIHTB-CB and other assessments as part of a multisite study. We provide a descriptive, secondary analysis of test administrator notes to determine use and appropriateness of accommodations.
RESULTS: Of the 604 participants, 450 (75%) completed the NIHTB-CB using standard administration procedures, but 137 (22.6%) encountered accessibility challenges that required accommodations. Participants with motor function impairments were most likely to receive at least 1 of 3 kinds of accommodations: (a) use of nonstandard methods of entering responses using standard input devices, (b) use of alternate input devices, or (c) help from the test administrator to enter a response. Fatigue and/or impulsivity led to nonstandard administration by 48 (7.9%) individuals. Post hoc audit of test administrator notes revealed that despite careful instructions and supervision, 49 (56.3%) of the accommodated administrations breached standardization and scores could not be interpreted using test norms.
CONCLUSION: Although the NIHTB-CB was developed for individuals without neurological impairment, most individuals with neurological conditions completed the standardized administration without accommodations. When accommodations were needed, administrators did not adhere to the official Reasonable Accommodations Guidelines in more than half of the cases. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29265866      PMCID: PMC5885769          DOI: 10.1037/rep0000191

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rehabil Psychol        ISSN: 0090-5550


  5 in total

1.  Motor demands of cognitive testing may artificially reduce executive function scores in individuals with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jinhyun Lee; Shauna Dudley-Javoroski; Richard K Shields
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 1.985

2.  Motor-free composites from the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-CB) for people with disabilities.

Authors:  Noelle E Carlozzi; Siera Goodnight; Anya Umlauf; Robert K Heaton; Allen W Heinemann; Benjamin D Schalet; Richard C Gershon; David S Tulsky
Journal:  Rehabil Psychol       Date:  2017-11

3.  Prerequisite Skills in Cognitive Testing: Innovations in theory and recommendations for practice.

Authors:  Aaron J Kaat; Somer Bishop; Emma Condy; Nancy R Sullivan; Latha Soorya; Audrey Thurm
Journal:  Cogn Dev       Date:  2021-03-25

4.  A novel measure of matching categories for early development: Item creation and pilot feasibility study.

Authors:  Emma Condy; Aaron J Kaat; Lindsey Becker; Nancy Sullivan; Latha Soorya; Natalie Berger; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Claire Michalak; Audrey Thurm
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  2021-05-25

5.  Accessibility Considerations in the National Children's Study.

Authors:  Mark Harniss; Susan Magasi; Dianne Sabat
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.418

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.