Authors
Jessica L. SaurmanBrandon E. GavettKaren DuffRobert J. McCaffrey
Topics
Nuclear and radioactivity studiesData Analysis with RInternational Science and DiplomacyArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology 32 (2017) 667–765Abstracts© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.doi:10.1093/arclin/acx076C-79Reliable Change on the RBANS: A Meta-AnalysisSaurman J, Gavett B, Duff K, McCaffrey RObjective: Despite the frequent use of serial assessments in neuropsychology, adequate information to appropriately assess change on measures is often not available. This meta-analysis aimed to aggregate test-retest reliability data available from the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Data Selection: A literature search of articles available between 1999 and October 2016 was performed using PubMed, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases to identify those that used a test-retest design and reported the correlation coefficient between RBANS scores at two time points. Studies included in this meta-analysis were not excluded on the basis of the participant sample characteristics. Data Synthesis: Ten studies met inclusion criteria. A multi-level linear random effects meta-analysis was conducted on RBANS Indexes.Pearson’s r or the intra-class correlation (ICC) were quantitatively aggregated. The results revealed an aggregate test-retest reliability of 0.85 (SE = 0.02, 95% CI [0.80, 0.89]) for the RBANS Total Scale score, with individuals Indexes ranging from 0.67 (Language) to 0.82 (Attention). The length of the retest interval weakly moderated the aggregate test-retest reliability estimate (ranging from b = 0.0000 for the Immediate Memory Index to b = −0.0005 for the Attention Index). Conclusion: Of the studies examined, only the Total Scale and Attention Index possessed adequate test-retest reliability (i.e., > .80). The retest interval weakly affected these RBANS test-retest reliabilities. Despite its widespread use in serial assessments of cogni tion, clinicians should be aware of the relatively low reliability of the RBANS, which limits its ability to detect reliable change in an individual patient.
About
PublishedSep 1, 2017
TypeArticle
Citations0