I´m wondering if the Conner´s Continuous Performance Test could be used to assess intraindividual variability. I am interested in studying oscillations in performance during this 15-min test in different patient groups, but I am not sure how a dispersion score could be obtained. Any suggestions are welcome.
Conners’ Continuous Performance Test is used in these papers where intraindividual variability is assessed:
Intraindividual neuropsychological test variability in healthy individuals with high average intelligence and educational attainment. Heyanka, Daniel J.; Holster, Jessica L.; Golden, Charles J.. International Journal of Neuroscience123.8 (Aug 2013): 526-531.
Increased intraindividual variability is a marker of ADHD but also of dyslexia: A study on handwriting. Borella, Erika; Chicherio, Christian; Re, Anna Maria; Sensini, Vanessa; Cornoldi, Cesare. Brain and Cognition77.1 (Oct 2011): 33-39.
Neuropsychological factors differentiating treated children with pediatric bipolar disorder from those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Mattis, Steven; Papolos, Demitri; Luck, Dana; Cockerham, Melissa; Thode, Henry C., Jr.. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology33.1 (Jan 2011): 74-84.
The Conners' CPT (CCPT) is often used as a trait measure, but there is considerable intraindividual variability. This can be seen by examining the data presented in the manual, and by reliability studies with the CCPT and other CPTs. In general, there is good internal consistency, poor test-retest reliability, and very poor diagnostic accuracy. The manual only looked at 23 participants for retest reliability, and they eliminated two of these because of discrepant scores (which is a little fishy). The group of 21 consisted of both clinical and healthy participants (which almost always inflates reliability correlation coefficients), and there was a wide age range (which also usually inflates stats when raw scores are examined). Still, their test-retest statistics were modest. An impartial study was published in 2011 out of Johns Hopkins, and it showed very poor reliability.
Similarly poor methodology was used for the diagnositic indices. Short story: there is a lot of sample-dependent inflation. (When is anyone ever 99.9% sure of group status???)
My advice would be to regard the CCPT as a state measure. When looking at trait-level factors, be sure to control for as many conditions as possible (diet, time of day, lighting, examiner, etc.). Ballard (1996?) had a very good review paper on the topic. It is a little dated now, but it still holds up. I suggest using this reference for relevant information on CPTs in general.
Article Growth Trajectories and Detrended Intraindividual Variabilit...
I did IVI study although a research setting is different from yours. The study process and how to present the study findings could be of help to you.
- Badges
- Science topic