The present study was an attempt to cross-validate discrimination rules derived from a previous study on the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery for use in predicting ventricular enlargement and to replicate the correlations found between the Luria-Nebraska scales and ventricular brain ratio. Forty-three chronic schizophrenic patients between the ages of 20 and 39 were given a computed tomography (CT) scan and the Luria-Nebraska Battery. Ventricular brain ratio was calculated, and the Luria-Nebraska rules previously suggested were applied to predict the absence or presence of ventricular enlargement. All 15 of the patients with ventricular enlargement were correctly classified by the Luria-Nebraska. Of 28 patients with normal ventricles, the Luria-Nebraska classified 18 as normal and 10 as brain damaged, for a combined hit rate of 33 out of 43, or 77%. The multiple correlation between the Luria-Nebraska scales and ventricular brain ratio was .76, comparable to the results of the previous study. Differences between the studies and the implications of objective CT scan measurement for detecting cerebral atrophy are discussed..

No abstract

No abstract

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 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)

This comment discusses the relationship between the Halstead-Reitan and Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Batteries, examining the role of intelligence and related factors in this relationship. The problems with using a postmorbid IQ as a covariate in assessing the relationship between two neuropsychological tests are discussed. Such a procedure corrects for degree and severity of brain injury in addition to premorbid levels of intelligence. Alternative measures such as education are suggested, which can be employed as a covariate controlling for premorbid intelligence. The changes in findings that occur using education as a covariate are demonstrated. The article also addresses the issue of the relative diagnostic utility of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale versus the Halstead-Reitan or the Luria-Nebraska batteries and emphasizes the importance of comparing batteries not only on hit rates for gross discriminations of brain damage but also for more fine descriptions of the patient's behavior and for predictive validity.