Verbal fluency task equivalence

Lacy, Maureen; Gore, Paul A.; Pliskin, Neil H.; Henry, George K.; Heilbronner, Robert L.; Hamer, Darryl P.

doi:10.1080/13854049608406692

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because the range of normal scores is narrower for CFL, interpretation of results from the two forms could be different for individuals whose scores lie at the extremes of the distribution where the effect of differences in standard deviations may be amplified. These results are inconsistent with findings from the study by Lacy et al (1996) showing comparable performance on the two forms in clinical samples. One implication of these results is that performance on one form of the test cannot be accurately interpreted using norms based on the other form.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

“…They administered the letters A, C, F, L, and S to each patient in various orders and then compared performance on CFL and FAS groupings. The two forms correlated highly in all patient groups, suggesting that interpretation of FAS using CFL norms would be accurate, at least in clinical samples (Lacy et al, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Borkowski, Benton, and Spreen (1967) classified the letters C, F, P, A, and S as easy letters and the letters L and R as difficult letters based on the English vocabulary size for each letter. The FAS test thus includes only easy letters, whereas the CFL=PRW norms are based on fluency in response to two easy and one difficult letter (Bolla et al, 1990;Lacy et al, 1996;Ruff, Light, Parker, & Levin, 1996). Although comparison of norms for the FAS and CFL forms of the COWA suggest some differences in difficulty, these differences are difficult to interpret due to the use of different samples for each form (see Spreen & Strauss, 1998, for summary).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Although comparison of norms for the FAS and CFL forms of the COWA suggest some differences in difficulty, these differences are difficult to interpret due to the use of different samples for each form (see Spreen & Strauss, 1998, for summary). Lacy et al (1996) studied the equivalence of the two forms in a sample of 287 patients with various neuropsychological complaints. They administered the letters A, C, F, L, and S to each patient in various orders and then compared performance on CFL and FAS groupings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

FAS and CFL Forms of Verbal Fluency Differ in Difficulty: A Meta-analytic Study

Barry

Bates

Labouvie

2008

Applied Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Controlled Oral Word Association (COWA) Test is a brief and sensitive measure of executive cognitive dysfunction. There are two commonly used forms of the test, one using the letters F, A, and S, and the other using C, F, and L. This study examines the relative difficulty of the two forms using a meta-analytic approach that includes multiple samples of normal individuals. The effects of age, education, gender composition, exclusion criteria, and age of study are also examined. Results indicate that the CFL form of the test is more difficult and that age, education, and the use of strict exclusion criteria influence performance. Performance is more variable for the FAS form, and age and age of study influence performance variability.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

FAS and CFL Forms of Verbal Fluency Differ in Difficulty: A Meta-analytic Study

Barry

Bates

Labouvie

2008

Applied Neuropsychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) is a measure of word-finding or verbal fluency. [15][16][17] Subjects were asked to say all the words they could think of beginning with a given letter, excluding proper nouns, numbers, and duplicate words with different suffixes. Scores reflected the count of all acceptable words produced in three 1-minute trials, each with a different letter.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neuropsychologic changes from before transplantation to 1 year in patients receiving myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant

Syrjala

Dikmen

Langer

et al. 2004

Blood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that myeloablative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) impairs neurocognitive function. However, prospective studies on long-term effects are lacking. This longitudinal study examined neurocognitive changes over the first year in 142 adult recipients of allogeneic HC transplants who received neuropsychologic testing before transplantation and again after 80 days and 1 year. Age-, sex-, and education-adjusted population-based standardized scores were used for normative comparisons. Performance on all tests declined from before transplantation to 80 days (P < .05) and improved by 1 year (P < .05), returning to pretransplantation levels on all tests except for grip strength and motor dexterity. Although verbal fluency and memory recovered by 1 year, both were below norms at all 3 testing times (P < .01). Logistic regressions indicated that patients without chemotherapy, other than hydroxyurea, previous to HCT and patients not receiving chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) medication at 1 year had lower risk of impaired function (P < .05). In conclusion, HCT was associated with significant generalized decline in neurocognitive performance at 80 days, with subsequent recovery to pretransplantation levels by 1 year for most survivors, except on motor tasks. Results indicate that long-term cognitive decrements, as distinct from motor disabilities, infrequently derive directly from HCT. (Blood.

show abstract