A thorough description of the NIH-TCB, including the rationale for test selection, neuroanatomical basis, and psychometric properties in a large representative sample of individuals from ages 3 to 89, are found in Weintraub et al. [39]. Additional details of the battery as specifically relevant to the pediatric population are found in Weintraub et al. [43].
bhatia battery test of intelligence pdf 61
The Kiddie Test of Attention Performance (KiTAP; [49]) is an executive function battery comprised of eight subtests designed around an enchanted castle theme specifically designed to be accessible to young children. Based on our prior work on the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the KiTAP in FXS [49], we chose the flexibility, go/no-go, and distractibility subtests, which include reliable and validated scores matching well with several NIH-TCB constructs.
We hypothesized that patients with RA may process emotions differently to controls and decided to investigate this using the personality trait emotional intelligence (trait EI). Trait EI is defined as a constellation of emotional self-perceptions concerning one's abilities to recognize, process and utilize emotion-laden information [19], details of which are seen in the tables. An alternative label for trait EI is "trait emotional self-efficacy". Trait EI should not be confused with seemingly related constructs that try to objectively gauge how "Emotionally Intelligent" one is, using IQ-like tests. Such tests have proved less useful, since it can be difficult to agree on the correct response to emotional questions. However, measuring EI as a trait is more straightforward, as assessment is facilitated by self-report questionnaires, where there are no right or wrong answers.
Our study has three main limitations. First, while we used a comprehensive, validated instrument to assess trait emotional intelligence, we were unable to employ validated instruments to assess depression or rheumatoid factor status. For these two variables, we used a rapid method of self-assessment by single question only. This was dictated by the nature of our research, which was explorative/formative, rather than definitive/summative. Second, while the differences between RA versus controls reached strict significance, those between RF+ and RF- subtypes lost their significance after Bonferroni adjustment. Thus, our findings should be considered as indicative and would need to be replicated on larger samples with a full battery of validated instruments. Third, our sample was not stratified, but limited to members of patient societies. Furthermore, our response rate was only 25%, so the sample might be weighted toward those who spend more time on the internet, those who are more comfortable with submitting data over the internet, or those who are particularly interested in personality and emotionality. Future research should make an effort to recruit from a broader base of eligible patients.
2ff7e9595c
Commentaires