Luria Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery Ppt

[Bran Bast]

TheLuria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery, also known as LNNB or Luria-Nebraska Battery, is a standardized test battery used in the screening and evaluation of neuropsychologically impaired individuals.

The LNNB was developed in an attempt to combine the qualitative techniques of some neuropsychological tests with the quantitative techniques of others. However, the scoring system that most clinicians use is primarily quantitative. The battery measures specific neuropsychological functioning in several areas including motor skills, language abilities, intellectual abilities, nonverbal auditory skills, and visual-spatial skills.

The battery is used by clinicians as a screening tool to determine whether a significant brain injury is present or to learn more about known brain injuries. It is also used to determine what the patient is or is not able to do with regard to neuropsychological functioning. For example, the LNNB may be used to determine which intellectual or cognitive tasks a patient may or may not be able to complete. The battery can also be used to arrive at underlying causes of a patient's behavior. More specifically, information regarding the location and nature of the brain injury or dysfunction causing a patient's problems is collected.

Because of the length of the test and complexity in interpretation, the examiner must be competent and properly trained. Also, the fact that many patients are, indeed, brain damaged can make test administration difficult or frustrating.

The LNNB is based on the work of A. R. Luria, a Russian neuropsychologist who performed pioneering theoretical and clinical work with regard to brain function. Luria believed in a primarily qualitative approach to assessment and was opposed to standardization. He did not believe that neuropsychological functioning could be measured quantitatively. Thus, although his name is part of the test itself, his contribution to the LNNB is entirely theoretical. Also, the LNNB is based, in part, on Luria's Neuropsychological Investigation, a measure developed by Christensen in 1975. This test included items asked by Luria in his clinical interviews, some of which are used in the LNNB.

The battery, written in 1981 by Charles Golden, is appropriate for people aged 13 and older and takes between 90 and 150 minutes to complete. It consists of 269 items in the following 11 clinical scales:

Scores for three summary scales can also be calculated: pathognomonic, right hemisphere, and left hemisphere. A children's version of the battery, called the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery for Children (LNNB-C), appropriate for children aged eight to 12, is also available.

The probability of brain damage is assessed by comparing an individual's score on each of the battery's 11 clinical scales to a critical level appropriate for that person's age and education level. For example, if a person has five to seven scores above the critical level, they most likely have some sign of neurological impairment. Eight or more scores above the critical level indicate a clear history of neurological disorder.

The battery has been criticized by researchers on the grounds that it overestimates the degree of neuropsychological impairment. In other cases, it has been found to fail to detect neuropsychological problems. Also, the intellectual processes scale has not been found to correspond well to other measures of intelligence, such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS).

Other research, however, has found it to be a useful measure. It has been found as effective as the Halstead-Reitan Battery in distinguishing between brain-damaged individuals and nonbrain-damaged individuals with psychiatric problems. Part of the inconsistencies in opinion regarding the LNNB may be due to the specific nature of the population being tested by the battery and the difficulties in administration and scoring that some clinicians experience.

Golden, Charles J., and Shawna M. Freshwater. "Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery" In Understanding Psychological Assessment: Perspectives on Individual Differences, edited by William I. Dorfman and Michael Hersen. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2001.

Golden, Charles J., Shawna M. Freshwater, and Jyothi Vayalakkara. "The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery." In Neuropsychological Assessment in Clinical Practice: A Guide to Test Interpretation and Integration, edited by Gary Groth-Marnat. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2000.

Encyclopedia.com gives you the ability to cite reference entries and articles according to common styles from the Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, and the American Psychological Association (APA).

The Luria-Nebraska is a neuropsychological evaluation battery that was developed to uncover the presence of cognitive impairments and to locate focal brain abnormalities that may account for these impairments in individuals 15 years of age and older. The battery consists of 11 clinical scales assessing major areas of neuropsychological functioning (motor functions, rhythm, tactile functions, visual functions, receptive speech, expressive speech, writing, reading, arithmetic, memory, intellectual processes), two sensorimotor scales (left hemisphere, right hemisphere), and three summary scales (pathognomonic, profile elevation, impairment). A parallel form of this battery is available and includes an additional clinical scale that evaluates delayed recollection of previously administered memory items (intermediate-term memory scale). Since publication, other scales have been developed and made available to users, including eight localization...

Neuropsychological testing, in its clinical or research application, may be composed of single tests that assess certain aspects of cognitive functions or of sets of tests, known as batteries. Some test batteries are designed to investigate several facets of a single cognitive function (e.g. types of memory), while others are dedicated to a broader and deeper investigation of cognitive abilities. Between the specificity of single tests and the depth of batteries, one may find a third class of psychometric instruments, composed of instruments designed to combine relatively quick application time and cover many cognitive functions: the screening tests. To accomplish such a task, screening tests usually refrain from making a complete performance profile of the functions they assess and focus on detecting signs of deficits (Ustrroz, 2007).

Previous studies with the original battery obtained several evidences of validity. Snow (1985) performed factor analysis from data of 100 children with learning disabilities, revealing three factors: language-overall intelligence, reading-writing, sensory-motor. In clinical samples the LNNB-CR identified performance differences between control and learning disabled subjects (Lewis et al. 1993), and between children and adolescents with reading disorders. The authors point out the LNNB-CR as an instrument potentially valid for investigation of neuropsychological alterations in children with learning issues (Myers et al. 1989).

Positive and significant correlations between full-scale IQ on WISC-III and all of TLN-C subtests and scores were found (Table 4). Effect size was low for Visual Skill, Receptive Speech, Expressive Speech subtests, moderate for Motor Skill, Rhythm, Tactile Skill, Writing, Reading and Immediate Memory, and high for Mathematical Reasoning and Total. Positive and significant correlations were also obtained among all TLN-C subtests. Effect sizes ranged from low to high. High effect sizes were associated with Writing, Reading and Mathematical Reasoning subtests, and between total score and Rhythm, Tactile Skill, Writing, Reading and Mathematical Reasoning subtests.

This study aimed to: (i) obtain validity and reliability evidences for the Luria-Nebraska Test for Children from relations with external criteria (age), (ii) identify scores that predict IQ, and (iii) verify internal consistency.

Along the development from preschool age to adolescence there is acquisition and refinement of cognitive functions. This result is supported by the maturation of the nervous system (especially the myelination and optimization of neural networks by synaptic pruning) and environmental stimulation that usually puts the child before many cognitive challenges, mainly in school activities (Osborn & Pereira, 2012).

The verification of age effects is common in cognitive test validation, since cognitive functions can develop with aging and experience. This external variable is so relevant in this kind of assessment that, after the normatization process, it is common for normative tables of reference for result interpretation to be organized by age ranges. A recent example is the validation e normatization of the newest Brazilian adaptation of the WISC (Rueda et al. 2013).

Furthermore, there was no ceiling effect and an interruption on the progression of means was found in some subtests. A ceiling effect is expected for some of TLN-C subtests because of their content (e.g. the notion of left and right, present on the Tactile Skill subtest, depend on age, and skills such as reading and mathematical reasoning depend on years of instruction) and task difficulty, which is not scalar, so that even the most difficult of them is not challenging.

In most cases, this data behavior may be explained by the sample of the study being composed of children with learning difficulties. In previous studies, the LNNB proved to be sensible in detecting performance differences between subjects with and without learning disabilities (Lewis et al., 1993; Myers et al., 1989). In this sense, the variations found may be related to the sensibility of the test to detect deficits in this population; however, comparative studies are needed to test such hypothesis. This kind of study may also help to clarify whether the similar performance of higher and lower ages in some subtests is due to a real lack of discrepancy on these functions during the developmental period covered by the test, or whether older children with learning difficulties show a performance similar to younger children due to deficits in cognitive functions. Moreover, the interruption of progression of scores occurred only in a few subtests and were insufficient to establish a new pattern.

3a8082e126