Component structure of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in dementia

Abstract

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) has been studied relatively extensively in normal samples, and its theoretically derived index scores have been demonstrated to be useful in the assessment of a variety of clinical conditions. However, examinations of the empirical relationships between individual subtests are limited. The intent of the present study was to explore the component structure of the instrument in a sample of 351 individuals with a diagnosed memory disorder, to examine the impact of demographic factors on these empirically derived components, and to explore differences in performance between diagnostic groups. Findings suggested a three-component solution (Memory, Visuomotor Processing, and Verbal Processing). Demographic variables had relatively small, but significant relationships with various component scores. Significant differences were observed between probable Alzheimer's disease and non-Alzheimer's type dementia groups on the memory component score, but not on other component scores or on RBANS index scores.

RBANS Norms based on the Relationship of Age, Gender, Education, and WRAT-3 Reading to Performance within an Older African American Sample

“…Accordingly, age-stratified norms were generated, and descriptive statistics for RBANS performance based on education level, and separately by WRAT-3 reading level are provided. In addition to the standard RBANS indexes, norms are provided for the alternative indexes developed by Garcia et al (2008).…”

“…Table 8 provides index scores based on age-converted scaled scores for the Randolph et al (1998) traditional RBANS structure. Table 9 provides index scores for the Garcia et al (2008) factors. Descriptive statistics for age by education level are provided in Table 10 and for age by WRAT-3 reading level in Table 11.…”

“…Percentile distributions were calculated and scaled scores were assigned to appropriate percentiles. Index scores were then calculated with subtest-scaled scores summed per the original RBANS methodology (Randolph, 1998), as well as an alternate three-factor structure in which Story Memory, List Recall, Story Recall, List Recognition, and Figure Recall are combined for a memory index; Figure Copy, Line Orientation, and Coding subtests are combined for a Visuomotor Processing index; and Semantic Fluency, Picture Naming, List Learning, and Digit Span are combined for a Verbal Processing index (Garcia et al, 2008).…”

Improving the Diagnostic Accuracy of the RBANS in Mild Cognitive Impairment With Construct-Consistent Measures

“…Secondly, the sensitivity discrepancy between the two studies may also be due in large part to methodological differences, namely Duff et al's (2010) focus on the index scores and this study's focus on the clusters of subtests that compromised the indexes. The increased sensitivity in the Retention and Long-Term Memory and Overall Cognitive Functioning models in this article (when compared with Duff et al, 2010) may provide further support against interpretation of the RBANS indexes and for preference toward individual subtest interpretation as suggested in factor-analytic studies (Carlozzi et al, 2008;Duff et al, 2006;Garcia et al, 2008;Schmitt et al, 2010;Wilde, 2006).…”

“…The RBANS indexes were not utilized in any of the classification models due to factor-analytic literature that suggests that the RBANS does not reproduce the purported five-factor or single-factor model (Carlozzi, Horner, Yang, & Tilley, 2008;Duff et al, 2006;Garcia, Leahy, Corradi, & Forchetti, 2008;Schmitt et al, 2010;Wilde, 2006). Consequently, this literature has encouraged analysis of the subtests in favor of the indexes.…”