Relationship of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery to the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Compared the major 14 scores of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery with the 14 summary scale scores of the Luria-Nebraska battery to investigate whether the batteries could predict one another and their effectiveness in a sample of 48 brain-damaged and 60 normal patients (mean age of all Ss 39 yrs). Discriminant analysis found both batteries equally effective in identifying brain damage, with hit rates of over 85%. A high degree of relationship between the Luria-Nebraska scale scores and the selected 14 scores of the Halstead-Reitan was found. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

D. Delis and E. Kaplan (see record 1983-24742-001) criticized the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery for not meeting some assumptions of content validity and, by inference, construct validity. Delis and Kaplan also criticized C. J. Golden for advocating improper use of the test battery as a substitute for clinical training and knowledge. The present authors evaluate the major points of Delis and Kaplan, indicating which are cogent to the battery and which are based on misunderstandings of the manner in which the battery should be used. The theoretical structure of the scales of the battery is briefly described, as are approaches to interpretation. Studies indicating that the battery has validity as a neuropsychological test and the requirements needed for accurate application of the battery are examined. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A cross-validation of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

30 brain-damaged males with evidence of unilateral left-hemisphere (mean age 58 yrs), unilateral right-hemisphere (mean age 57 yrs), or bilateral-diffuse brain lesions (mean age 41 yrs), as well as 10 normal control Ss (mean age 54 yrs), were administered the standardized Luria-Nebraska test battery. Data demonstrate that the battery was effective in discriminating brain-damaged from normal control Ss. However, it was relatively ineffective in distinguishing the laterality of brain damage. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correlation of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery with the WAIS.

In a sample of 280 psychiatric, neurological, and normal Ss (mean age 35.7 yrs), Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery Verbal IQ correlated—.84, Performance IQ—.74, and Full Scale IQ—.84 with the WAIS, results very similar to those of A. Prifitera and J. J. Ryan (1981). Correlations between individual Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery scales and WAIS subtests are reported and their implications discussed. Present findings indicate that the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery can provide useful estimates of summary WAIS IQ scores. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Analytic techniques in the interpretation of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

The use of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery meets clinical needs and provides for continued research, but should not prevent the clinician from using qualitative data when appropriate. A review of the theoretical basis of the Luria-Nebraska Battery, including reasons for use of a standardized battery and the construction of the scales, is included. The article also presents a brief example of a Luria-Nebraska interpretation using the case of a 60-yr-old male displaying fluent aphasic deficits, who was examined by D. C. Delis and E. Kaplan (see record 1982-08842-001). (11 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Localization and diagnosis in aphasia with the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Administered the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) and the Left Frontal and Left Temporal Localization scales of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB) to 22 aphasics, aged 50–74 yrs, who had sustained localized cortical injury. Results indicate no significant differences among focal lesion groups on the LNNB scales, which characterized every S with temporal lobe damage as frontal lobe impaired. Both Localization scales correlated highly with BDAE subtests, indicating LNNB sensitivity to impaired fluency, comprehension, naming, repetition, articulation, and writing. Although the LNNB scales were sensitive to many core aphasic symptoms, they appeared to lack localizing or diagnostic specificity in aphasia. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detecting mild brain impairment using the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Demonstrated the validity of the standardized Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery with 36 pseudoneurologic, borderline, or brain-damaged Ss (average ages 41, 36, and 35 yrs). A correct overall classification rate of 80% was obtained, with relatively low false positive and false negative rates. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diagnostic validity of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision.

Compared the diagnostic validity of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision (LNNB—C) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC—R) for 96 8–12 yr olds in 1 of 3 diagnostic groups: neurological, psychiatric, and normal controls. Interrater reliability was demonstrated. Separate stepwise discriminant analyses using 6 variables (subtest scores) selected by each test correctly classified 81% (LNNB—C) and 85% (WISC—R) of the psychiatric and neurological groups. No clear incremental validity for the use of the LNNB—C over the WISC—R was demonstrated. (23 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: Theoretical orientation and comment.

Since the introduction of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB), issues related to its understanding, interpretation, and validity have generated much interest. In response to P. A. Spiers's (see record 1981-24833-001) criticism of the battery, the authors suggest that the controversy appears to arise from a divergence in theoretical orientation on the role of quantitative versus qualitative assessment as well as from differences in the understanding of measurement methodology and validity. The present article discusses the theoretical basis from which the LNNB was constructed and describes the process of test interpretation. Previous and current research on use and validity of the battery is presented as it relates to the theoretical and methodological concerns. While basic philosophical differences with other theoretical systems are not likely to be resolved, the authors of the LNNB will continue to emphasize the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, both in the use of the LNNB and in the field of neuropsychology in general. It is concluded that the LNNB will continue to be revised on the basis of research findings and experience with the test in different patient populations. (35 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Neuropsychological test performance and the attention deficit disorders: Clinical utility of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children's Revision.

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery—Children"s Revision (LNNB—CR) was administered to 54 clinic-referred children aged 8–12 years. Children reliably diagnosed as attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity were compared with children diagnosed as attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity and with a clinic control group diagnosed with internalizing disorders. Both attention deficit disorder groups were lower than the control group in verbal and Full Scale IQ scores but did not differ from one another. The groups did not differ significantly on any of the LNNB—CR clinical scales, on the right or left hemisphere scores, or on the pathognomonic score using analyses of variance (ANOVA) or analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) with both Full Scale IQ and age as covariates. These findings failed to support the hypothesis that attention deficit disorder, either with or without hyperactivity, is associated with neuropsychological dysfunction as measured by the LNNB—CR. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Efficacy of a decision-tree approach to the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Investigated whether the Luria-Nebraska Neurological Battery (LNNB) items could be arranged in a decision-tree fashion that would allow item administration based on the patient's performance. In Exp I, results from 40 standardly administered LNNB (full-LNNB) were compared with derived results based on the decision-tree administration procedure (decision-LNNB). Results show that the decision-LNNB was in 91% agreement with full-LNNB scale scores above the brain-impaired cutoff line. Using the 2-scale elevation rule of C. Golden et al (1980), the 2 administration procedures were in 100% agreement in selecting brain-impaired patients. In Exp II, the decision-LNNB was used alone with 26 brain-impaired patients and 4 normals. Results indicate an 87% hit rate. (3 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Identification of neuropsychological deficits in epilepsy using the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

80 hospitalized patients, 22 diagnosed as having idiopathic seizures, 18 who developed epilepsy secondary to brain trauma or another CNS disorder, and 40 who demonstrated no evidence of CNS involvement, were given the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. Mean ages of Ss were 38.3, 35.2, and 41.1 yrs, respectively. Results demonstrate that the standardized Luria test may be useful in the evaluation of neuropsychological deficits in adult epileptics. (6 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Split-half reliability and item-scale consistency of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Studied 338 patients, including 74 normal Ss, 83 psychiatric patients, and 181 neurological patients. Odd–even splits were used to determine the split-half reliabilities, which ranged from .89 (Memory) to .95 (Reading). Item–scale consistency was determined by correlating each item with each scale score and assigning the item to the scale with which it correlated highest. The scale that the item was on according to the test and the scale to which it was empirically assigned agreed for 250 of the 269 items. (5 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery in aphasia: A conceptual critique.

States that the Luria-Nebraska battery fails to distinguish between disturbances of language and other deficits, and fails to differentiate some types of language problems. Other difficulties, which apply to nonaphasic as well as aphasic populations, complicate the task of interpreting test data when an aphasic disturbance is present. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Applicability of the screening test for the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery in Taiwan

The study was to examine the applicability of the screening test for the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery in Taiwan. This screening test contains 15 items. It could be used at the first stage of neuropsychological assessment process and served as a screening tool for brain-damaged patients. In this study, 50 brain-damaged patients, 50 normal controls receiving physical examination, and 100 normal controls from local communities were sampled and administered with the screening test. Based on test results, item analysis and factor analysis were performed, reliability and validity data were established, and temporary local norm and subgroup norm were also developed. It also investigated the effects of age and educational level on test performance. Further factor analysis with total subjects showed that three factors were extracted. Factor 1 was number concept and simple calculation. Factor 2 was higher cortical function. Factor 3 was motor control and rhythm. These three factors accounted for sixty percent of total variance. In addition, cut-off scores were set for low and high education groups.     

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery controversy: A reply to Spiers.

Challenges the contention of P. A. Spiers (see record 1981-24833-001) that the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery is flawed by difficulties in item content and selection, subscale composition, administration and scoring problems, and reliability and validity insufficiencies. It is suggested that the contention was based on errors in fact and reasoning, although the present author recognizes valid criticisms in Spiers's examination of the memory scale, color perception, and the training of the examiner. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Comparison of the decision-tree and standard methods of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery.

Compared the decision-tree and standard formats of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery on 30 psychiatric patients (mean age 40.7 yrs), 30 subtle neurological patients (mean age 52.6 yrs), and 30 clear-cut neurological patients (mean age 55.1 yrs). Results of correlational analyses, mean item disagreements, the C. J. Golden et al (see record 1981-29340-001) diagnostic 2- and 3-point elevation rules, and a distance metric (D–2) for comparison of profiles strongly suggest a high degree of correspondence between the decision-tree method and the standard battery for the Clinical, Localization, and Factor scales. It is noted that the average number of items omitted by the decision-tree method indicates a substantial savings of time. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Discrimination of brain damage from chronic psychosis by the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: A closer look.

Compared the performance of 51 brain-damaged (BD) patients (mean age 43.88 yrs) and 50 patients with chronic schizophrenic or schizoaffective disorder (SPHD or SAFD; mean age 40.50 yrs) on the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery (LNNB). LNNB data from independent samples of 267 BD patients (mean age 50.26 yrs) and 176 patients with SPHD or SAFD (mean age 37.97 yrs) were also analyzed. SPHD and SAFD Ss were discriminated from BD Ss at high levels by relatively few LNNB variables. Level of performance discrimination was compared with sampling criteria as bases of the high group discriminability. Hit rates appeared to be a function of the strictness of neurological inclusion criteria, so that hit rate differences among studies may be artifacts of sampling bias. The importance of demographic variable analysis is stressed. (13 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The assessment of aphasia with the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery: A case critique.

A 60-yr-old male patient with a left posterior temporal lesion, who was nonhemiparetic and who displayed mild "fluent aphasic" deficits, was given the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery. The S's quantitative scores on the Expressive Speech, Receptive Speech, and Motor scales of the battery were not consonant with his presenting symptoms and the location of his lesion. An analysis of the S's responses on individual items on these scales illustrates fundamental problems inherent in the construction of the battery. (12 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Test–retest reliability of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery in stable, chronically impaired patients.

27 patients (mean age 35.3 yrs) with evidence of long-standing organic brain disorders who scored in the moderately impaired range on the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery on an initial testing were retested after 10–469 days. Test–retest correlations ranged from .77 to .96, averaging .88 over the 14 Luria scales; all correlations were significant at the .001 level. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)