Continuous Performance Test (CPT)ĬPTs have an extensive history and exist in multiple forms ( Mackworth, 1948 Rosvold et al., 1956 Anderson et al., 1969 Earle-Boyer et al., 1991 Greenberg & Waldman, 1993 Dougherty, Marsh & Mathias, 2002 Riccio et al., 2002). Each of these measures is described in more detail below. These tests were chosen because they assess theoretically important constructs (vigilance, attentional capacity, short-term memory, and decision making), have an extensive history, and their neural substrates have been examined in lesion and neuroimaging studies. Although the PEBL tests were developed based on the methods sections of the peer reviewed literature, this direct comparison is important because some potentially important procedural details may have been omitted, described ambiguously, or misinterpreted.įour tests were selected for the present report for comparison between the PEBL and non-PEBL (i.e., established) versions: the Continuous Performance Test (CPT), Digit Span Forward (DS-F), DS Backward (DS-B), and the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). A key step in PEBL battery development is to evaluate criterion validity (i.e., the extent to which its dependent measures predict other existing measures) by determining whether performance on PEBL tests is similar to the established versions of the tests. The PEBL tests have been employed in studies of traumatic brain injury ( Danckert et al., 2012), behavioral pharmacology ( Aggarwal et al., 2011 Lyvers & Tobias-Webb, 2010), aging ( Clark & Kar, 2011 Piper et al., 2012), Parkinson’s disease ( Peterson et al., 2015) and behavioral genetics ( Wardle et al., 2013 González-Giraldo et al., 2014) by investigators in developed and developing countries, and the tests have been administered in many languages. The latest version of Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) test battery ( Mueller, 2015 Mueller & Piper, 2014 Piper et al., 2015a) was downloaded more than 21,000 times in 2015 and use continues to increase ( Fox et al., 2013 Lipnicki et al., 2009a Lipnicki et al., 2009b Piper, 2010).
Select differences between workalike versions of the same test highlight how detailed aspects of implementation may have more important consequences for computerized testing than has been previously acknowledged.Īn increasingly large collection (>100) of classic and novel clinical psychology and behavioral neurology tests have been computerized and made freely available ( ) over the past decade. These findings are broadly supportive of the criterion validity of the PEBL measures of sustained attention, short-term memory, and decision making. However, the amount of money earned (score–loan) was significantly higher in the PEBLIGT during the last Block.Ĭonclusions. The PARIGT and the PEBLIGTs showed a very similar pattern for response times across blocks, development of preference for Advantageous over Disadvantageous Decks, and Deck selections. The total WDS score was moderately correlated with the PDS ( r = 0.56). DS Forward was significantly greater than DS Backward on the WDS ( p <. The between-test correlations were moderately high (reaction time r = 0.78, omission errors r = 0.65, commission errors r = 0.66) on the CPT. Participants also completed the Psychological Assessment Resources or the PEBL versions of the Iowa Gambling Task ( PARIGT or PEBLIGT). In a second cohort, participants ( N = 47) completed a non-computerized (Wechsler) and a computerized (PEBL) Digit Span ( WDS or PDS) both Forward and Backward. In one cohort, young-adults ( N = 44) completed both the Conner’s Continuous Performance Test ( CCPT) and the PEBL CPT ( PCPT) with the order counter-balanced. This study evaluated the correspondence between the PEBL and the non-PEBL versions of four executive function tests. The Psychology Experimental Building Language (PEBL) test battery ( ) is a popular application for neurobehavioral investigations.
0 kommentar(er)
