Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:09:28.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical methods for assessing meaningful neuropsychological change following epilepsy surgery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2009

Stephen M. Sawrie ,
Gordon J. Chelune ,
Richard I. Naugle  and
Hans O. Lüders
Stephen M. Sawrie
Affiliation:
Section of Neuropsychology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195 Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106
Gordon J. Chelune
Affiliation:
Section of Neuropsychology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195
Richard I. Naugle
Affiliation:
Section of Neuropsychology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195
Hans O. Lüders
Affiliation:
Section of Epilepsy and Sleep Disorders, Department of Neurology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traditional methods for assessing the neurocognitive effects of epilepsy surgery are confounded by practice effects, test-retest reliability issues, and regression to the mean. This study employs 2 methods for assessing individual change that allow direct comparison of changes across both individuals and test measures. Fifty-one medically intractable epilepsy patients completed a comprehensive neuropsychological battery twice, approximately 8 months apart, prior to any invasive monitoring or surgical intervention. First, a Reliable Change (RC) index score was computed for each test score to take into account the reliability of that measure, and a cutoff score was empirically derived to establish the limits of statistically reliable change. These indices were subsequently adjusted for expected practice effects. The second approach used a regression technique to establish “change norms” along a common metric that models both expected practice effects and regression to the mean. The RC index scores provide the clinician with a statistical means of determining whether a patient's retest performance is “significantly” changed from baseline. The regression norms for change allow the clinician to evaluate the magnitude of a given patient's change on 1 or more variables along a common metric that takes into account the reliability and stability of each test measure. Case data illustrate how these methods provide an empirically grounded means for evaluating neurocognitive outcomes following medical interventions such as epilepsy surgery. (JINS, 1996, 2, 556–564.)

Keywords

Temporal lobe epilepsyMemoryReliable changePractice effectsRegression to the mean
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 2 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 556 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andermann, F. (1987). Identification of candidates for surgical treatment of epilepsy. In Engel, J., Jr. (Ed.), Surgical treatment of the epilepsies (pp. 51–69). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Chelune, G.J. (1994). The role of neuropsychological assessment in the presurgical evaluation of the epilepsy candidate. In Wyler, A.R. & Hermann, B.P. (Eds.), The surgical management of epilepsy (pp. 78–89). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
Chelune, G.J., Naugle, R.I., Lüders, H., Sedlak, J., & Awad, I.A. (1993). Individual change after epilepsy surgery: Practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology, 7, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodrill, C.B. & Matthews, C.G. (1992). The role of neuropsychology in the assessment and treatment of persons with epilepsy. American Psychologist, 47, 1139–1142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, J., Jr. (1987). Approaches to localization of the epileptogenic zone. In Engel, J. Jr., (Ed.), Surgical treatment of the epilepsies (pp. 75–95). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Heaton, R.K., Chelune, G.J., Talley, J.L., Kay, G.G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual (Rev. ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
Hermann, B.P., Wyler, A.R., VanderZwagg, R., LeBailly, R.K., Whitman, S., Somes, G., & Ward, J. (1991). Predictors of neuropsychological change following anterior temporal lobectomy: Role of regression toward the mean. Journal of Epilepsy, 4, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, H.E. (1958). The Hooper Visual Organization Test manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Ivnik, R.J., Malec, J.F., Smith, G.E., Tangalos, E.C., Peterson, R.C., Kokmen, E., & Kurland, L.T. (1992). Mayo's Older American Normative Studies: Updated AVLT norms for ages 56 to 97. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones-Gotman, M. (1991). Localization of lesions by neuropsychological testing. Epilepsia, 32 (Suppl. 5), 41–52.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaplan, E.F., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). The Boston Naming Test. Boston: Kaplan & H. Goodglass.Google Scholar
King, D.W., Flanigin, H.F., Gallagher, B.B., & So, E.L. (1986). Temporal lobectomy for partial complex seizures: Evaluation, results, and one year follow-up. Neurology, 36, 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüders, H. (Ed.). (1991). Epilepsy surgery. New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, C.G. & Klove, H. (1964). Instruction manual for the Adult Neuropsychology Test Battery. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Medical School.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, R.J., Ortega, A., Orsillo, S.M., & Nelles, W.B. (1992). Practice effects in repeated neuropsychological assessments. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSweeney, A.J., Naugle, R.I., Chelune, G.J., & Lüders, H. (1993). “7 scores for change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, T.B. (1983). Surgical treatment of complex partial seizures: Results, lessons and problems. Epilepsia, 24, 565–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rausch, R. (1987). Psychological evaluation. In Engel, J. Jr., (Ed.), Surgical treatment of the epilepsies (pp. 181–195). New York: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Reitan, R.M. & Davison, L.A. (1974). Clinical neuropsychology: Current status and applications. New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
Reitan, R.M. & Wolfson, D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery: Theory and clinical interpretation (2nd ed.). Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.Google Scholar
Rey, A. (1964). L'examen clinique en psychologie Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Russell, E.W., Neuringer, C., & Goldstein, G. (1970). Assessment of brain damage: A neuropsychological key approach. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Speer, D.C. (1992). Clinically significant change: Jacobson and Truax (1991) revisited. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spreen, O. & Benton, A.L. (1977). Neurosensory Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: University of Victoria Neuropsychology Laboratory.Google Scholar
Warrington, E.K. (1984). Recognition Memory Test. Windsor, UK: NFE-Nelson.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wyllie, E. (Ed.). (1993). The treatment of epilepsy: Principles and practices. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar