Citation

Yantz CL, Gavett BE, Lynch JK, McCaffrey RJ. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2006; 21(8): 809-817.

Affiliation

University at Albany, State University of New York, NY 12222, United States.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.acn.2006.09.001

PMID

17023140

Abstract

The performances of 110 litigants on seven variables from the Halstead-Reitan neuropsychological battery (HRNB) were used to compare Heaton, Miller, Taylor, and Grant's (2004) Deficit Scale (DS) and Reitan and Wolfson's (1993) Neuropsychological Deficit Scale (NDS). Additional comparisons were made for people who passed or failed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) to determine effects of effort on scores generated by either scoring system. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that all seven comparisons were significantly different for the full sample (p< or =0.001). The NDS indicated greater levels of impairment compared to DS across all variables. These findings were also obtained when considering effort, though TOMM failure was related to non-significant differences for two variables. These findings suggest that the two scoring systems are not equivalent, with Heaton et al.'s DS resulting in consistently higher identification rates of normal brain functioning compared to those generated from Reitan and Wolfson's NDS system.

Language: en