Who Do They Think Theyre Kidding

1
Who Do They Think Theyre Kidding

• Use of the Word Memory Test with Children
  Follow-up Results
• Martin L. Rohling, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology
• University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

2
Which kids are we going to examine?

• Data Source 1 Psychological Clinic on the campus
  of the University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL.
• (n 55)
• Data Source 2 Randi Most, private practice in
  Jacksonville, FL.
• (n 54)

3
Demographics AgeM 10.0 (sd 3.1)
4
Demographics Gender
5
Reasons for Referral
6
Adult Data

• Young Adults lt 25 y/o
• N 49
• Age 21.6 (sd 1.7)
• Ed 14.3 (sd 1.9)
• Adults gt 25 y/o
• N 50
• Age 33.3 (sd 10.7)
• Ed 14.3 (sd 2.3)

7
Post Assessment Dx Classification
8
Age Effect on WMT IR DR(T Scores with 97 Brain
Injured Adults as Normative Group)

• Means (SD)
• Age 6-7 15 (31)
• Age 8-9 31 (28)
• Age 10-12 36 (23)
• Age 13-17 46 (13)
• Age 18-25 41 (26)
• Age gt 25 44 (20)

9
(No Transcript)
10
Age Effect on WMT MC PA(T Scores with 97 Brain
Injured Adults as Normative Group)

• Means (SD)
• Age 6-7 26 (14)
• Age 8-9 37 (10)
• Age 10-12 52 (13)
• Age 13-17 46 (14)
• Age 18-25 48 (13)
• Age gt 25 45 (14)

11
(No Transcript)
12
Age Effect on WMT Del. FR(T Scores with 97 Brain
Injured Adults as Normative Group)

• Means (SD)
• Age 6-7 31 (10)
• Age 8-9 39 (14)
• Age 10-12 47 (12)
• Age 13-17 47 (13)
• Age 18-25 48 (14)
• Age gt 25 48 (14)

13
(No Transcript)
14
Percent Below Cutoff for Exaggeration
15
No Age Effect on OTBM(T Scores for all cognitive
ability tests normed by age group)

• Means (SD)
• Age 6-7 46 (6)
• Age 8-9 47 (10)
• Age 10-12 47 (9)
• Age 13-17 47 (9)
• Age 18-25 53 (7)
• Age gt 25 49 (9)

16
No Age Effect on FSIQ(FSIQ for Wechsler IQs
normed by age group)

• Means (SD)
• Age 6-7 98 (12)
• Age 8-9 95 (21)
• Age 10-12 98 (18)
• Age 13-17 96 (18)
• Age 18-25 108 (16)
• Age gt 25 99 (15)

17
Type of Measure (Ability vs. Effort) by Age Group
T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain
injured adults. OTBM generated from normative
data published in the administration manual for
each test included.
18
IQ Effect on Mean IR DR
T Scores generated with 97 brain injured adults
as normative group FSIQ was split into High and
Low at 100.
19
IQ Effect on WMT Diagnostic Groups
20
Patients Volunteers Age Effect IQ Effect
Patients
Patients
Volunteers
Volunteers
21
Multiple Regression ResultsIQ Age Effects on
WMT Effort Measures

• Independent effects for IQ and Age on mean T
  score for effort on IR DR.
• Results replicated of similar magnitude when
  analyzing other effort measures (i.e, MC, PA), as
  well as DFR.

22
Effect of Diagnosis on WMT Effort Measures
23
Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis

• As much as possible, categories for reason for
  referral were the same as those for primary
  diagnosis.
• This allowed for a measure of congruence between
  reason for referral and diagnosis.
• Overall congruence was greater for children than
  it was for adults.
• Congruence for Children 58
• Congruence for Adults 44

24
Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis

• Incongruence between referral and diagnosis was
  significantly different for the ADHD and LD when
  children and adults were examined separately.
• ADHD - Only 27 of adults referred were diagnosed
  ADHD, whereas 67 of children were diagnosed.
• LD Only 35 of adults referred were diagnosed
  LD, whereas 59 of children were diagnosed,
  primarily with dyslexia.

25
Effect of Diagnosis on Kids Overall Test Battery
Mean (OTBM)
26
Diagnostic Group by Type of Measure in Children
T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain
injured adults. OTBM generated from normative
data published in the administration manual for
each test included.