Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics

Document Sample
Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics Powered By Docstoc
					Correlates of ANAM 2001 Cognitive Scales with Domains of the NEO Five-Factor Personality Inventory William J. Marks, Ed.S., and W. Paul Jones, Ed.D. School Psychology Program University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3003 The relationship between personality traits and general intelligence has been of interest for many years, however, most researchers have treated the constructs of personality and intelligence rather independently (Ackerman & Beier, 2003; Furnham, Moutafi, and Chamorror-Premuzic, 2005; Chamorro-Premuzic, Furnham & Petrides 2006). It appears that few studies have jointly examined the relationship between different aspects of intelligence, such as gf and gc and established personality traits (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2006). Objective. Examination of correlation between NEO personality test and ANAM Logical Reasoning, 2Choice Reaction Time, Sternberg Memory, Math Processing, and Matching to Sample is the purpose of this study. ANAM (Automated Neuropsychological Assessment Metrics) is a series of cognitive scales that measure underlying frameworks of working memory, processing speed, and resistance to interference. The usefulness of the ANAM battery has been demonstrated in a variety of applications, including assessing the effects of mild brain injury, the effects of pharmaceutical interventions, and changes in cognitive efficiency as a result of stress or loud noise. ANAM scales have also been used in assessing the cognitive functioning of individuals who have been exposed to radiation. The ANAM battery originated from the Department of Defense Joint Working Group on Drug Dependent Degradation. The ANAM was developed to be a brief automated cognitive measure, which includes a variety of subtests based on simple and complex reaction time paradigms. (Reeves, et al., 2006). The NEO Five Factor personality test is designed to provide a general description of normal personality relevant to clinical, counseling and educational situations. The five domains of the NEO personality test, which include openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, are considered a valid and reliable measure of adult personality. The five domains (factors) of the NEO measure the emotional, motivational, interpersonal, and attitudinal styles of adolescents and adults. Method. Seventy-seven upper division university students completed the windows-based ANAM 2001 scales and the NEO Personality Inventory in 2005-2006. All testing was completed in a university lab setting. Participants included 18 male and 59 female college students. The mean age of the participants was 24.10. Ages ranged from 19 to 56 years old. Participants were students meeting an undergraduate course requirement in order to participate in this research study. Participants varied for different scales because of removal of outliers. Results. Statistically significant correlation coefficients between ANAM scales and NEO personality inventory were evident in Sternberg Memory accuracy and NEO Extraversion, r=.-263, Sternberg Memory response time and NEO Agreeableness, r=.251, Matching to Sample efficiency and NEO Neuroticism, r=.265, Matching to Sample efficiency and NEO Conscientiousness, r=-.251, Matching to Sample accuracy and NEO Conscientiousness, r=-.234, and Matching to Sample response time and NEO Neuroticism, r= -.287. SM ACC_NEO E SM RT_NEO A MS EFF_NEO N MS EFF_NEO C MS ACC_NEO C MS RT_NEO N n = 76 n = 76 n = 74 n = 74 n = 74 n = 74 r= -.263 r= .251 r= .265 r= -.251 r= -.234 r= -.287
SM ACC_NEO E= Sternberg Memory Accuracy_NEO Extraversion SM RT_NEO A=Sternberg Memory Response Time_NEO Agreeableness MS EFF_NEO N=Matching to Sample Efficiency_NEO Neuroticism MS EFF_NEO C=Matching to Sample Efficiency_NEO Conscientiousness MS ACC_NEO C=Matching to Sample Accuracy_NEO Conscientiousness MS RT_NEO N=Matching to Sample Response Time_NEO Neuroticism

Conclusions. Results suggest a modest but statistically significant relationship between selected ANAM cognitive factors and selected NEO personality traits. An unexpected finding in the data was the remarkably low correlations between ANAM scores and NEO Openness. Further study is warranted to determine whether this is an artifact of this sample and to examine the negative relationship with Conscientiousness. References: Ackerman, P., L., and Beier, M., E. (2003). Intelligence, personality, and interests in the career choice process. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 205-218. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 219-245. Austin, E., J., Deary, I., J., & Willock, J. (2001). Personality and intelligence as predictors of economic behavior in Scottish farmers. European Journal of Personality, 15, S123S137. Bates, T., and Rock, A. (2004). Personality and information processing speed: Independent influences on intelligence performance. Intelligence, 32, 33-46. Barratt, E. (1995). History of personality and intelligence theory and research: The challenge. In D. Saklofsky and M. Zeidner (Ed.), International handbook of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 3-13). New York, NY, US: Plenum. Bartone, Snook, & Tremble. (2002). Cognitive and personality predictors of leader performance in West Point cadets. Military Psychology, 14(4), 321-338. Bleiberg, J., Garmoe, W. S., Cederquist, J., Reeves, D., & Lux, W. (1993). Effects of Damphetamine on performance consistency following brain injury: A double-blind placebo crossover case study. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, & Behavioral Neurology, 6, 245-248. Bleiberg, J., Kane, R. L., Reeves, D. L., Garmoe, W. S., Halpern, E. (2000). Factor analysis of computerized and traditional tests used in mild brain injury research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14(3), 287-294. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40, 153193. Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Carless, S. A. (1999). Career assessment: Holland’s vocational interests, personality characteristics, and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(2), 125-144. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Moutafi, J., & Furnhan, A. (2004). The relationship between personality traits, subjectively-assessed and fluid intelligence. Personality and individual differences 38, 1517-1528. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnhan, A., & Petrides, K. (2006). Personality and intelligence. The relationship of Eysenck’s giant three with verbal and numerical ability. Journal of individual differences, 27(3), 147-150. Clifford, J., Boufal, M., and Kurtz, J. (2004). Personality traits and critical thinking skills in college students. Assessment, 11(2), 169-176. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R., R. (1992a). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665. Czeschlik, T. (1993). General intelligence, temperament, and the matching familiar figures test. European journal of Personality, 7, 379-386. Eysenck, H. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16, 5, or 3? – Criteria for a taxonomic paradigm. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 773-790. Eysenck, H. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667-673. Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & McDougall, F. (2003). Personality, cognitive ability, on behalf about intelligence as predictors of academic performance. Learning and

Individual Differences, 14, 47-64. Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality and intelligence: Gender, the big five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection and assessment, 13, 11. Furnham, A., Zhang, J., and Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality and academic achievement. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality Issue, 25(2), 119-145. Harris, W. C., Goernert, P.N., Nelson, K., Netsch, S., & Scheel, M. (1996). Daytime cognitive performance and fatigue change (ERPL Report No. 96-02). Mankato, MN: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance Laboratory. Holliday, S. L., Navarrete, M. G., Hermosillo-Romo, D., Valdez, C.R., Saklad, A. R., Escalante, A., & Brey, R.L. (2003). Validating a computerized neuropsychological test battery for mixed ethnic lupus patients. Lupus, 12, 697-703. Jones, W. P. (1994b). Personality correlates of the ANAM battery. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 145-146. Jones, P. W. (1998). Normative Studies. Retrieved February 3, 2007, from http://www. unlv.edu/faculty/pjones/nl1_3.htm Jones, W. P. (1999). State-trait personality characteristics and cognitive efficiency. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14, 79-80. Jones, W. P.., Marks, W. J., & Kadlubek, R. (2006, October). Correlates of ANAM 2001 Adapted logical reasoning scale. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Neuropsychology convention, San Antonio, Texas. Laidra, Pullman, & Allik. (2006). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences 42, 441–451. Levinson, Reeves, & Watson. (2005). Automated neuropsychological assessment metrics (ANAM) measures of cognitive effects of Alzheimer's disease. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(3), 403-408. Lewandowski, A.G., Dietz, A. J., & Reeves, D. L. (1995). A neuropsychologicpharmacodynamic paradigm for demonstrating cognitive enhancement and suppression in the elderly. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 10, 357-358. Mead, & Drasgow. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449-458. Personality Research. (1998). The NEO five-factor model. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/popkins.html Reeves, D. L., Bleiberg, J., Roebuck-Spencer, T., Cernich, A., N., Schwab, K., Ivins, B., Salazar, A., M., Harvey, S., C., Brown, F. H. & Warden, D. (2006). Reference values for performance on the automated neuropsychological assessment metrics V3.0 in an active duty military sample. Military Medicine, 171, 982-994. Reeves, D. L., Levinson, D. M., Gamache, G., & Bidiouk, P. (1998). Neurocognitive and physical abilities assessments ten + years (1995-97) after the Chernobyl nuclear accident (Scientific Report NCRF-TR-98-01). San Diego: National Cognitive Recovery Foundation. Sigma Assessments (2006). Sigma instrument data. Retrieved February 2, 2007 from http:://www.Sigmaassessmentsystems.com/assessments/neopir.asp Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York: Macmillan. Starbuck, V. N., Bleiberg, J., & Kay, G. G. (1995). Damphetamine-medicated enhancement of the P300 ERP: A placebo-crossover double-blind case study. Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, & Behavioral Neurology, 8, 189-192. Sternberg, R., J., Ruzgis, P. & Collier, G. (1995). When worlds collide: Toward an integration of personality and intelligence. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(2), 290297. Zeidner, M., & Mathews, G. (2000). Intelligence and personality. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 581-610). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:1643
posted:7/8/2008
language:English
pages:3
Description: An abstract assessing automated neuropsychological methods.
Matthew Bilinsky Matthew Bilinsky
About