Child Neuropsychology A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and Adolescence
ISSN: 0929-7049 (Print) 1744-4136 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncny20
Developmental normative data for the BaronHopkins Board test of spatial location memory Ida Sue Baron, Crista Hopp & Brandi A. Weiss To cite this article: Ida Sue Baron, Crista Hopp & Brandi A. Weiss (2015) Developmental normative data for the Baron-Hopkins Board test of spatial location memory, Child Neuropsychology, 21:6, 732-750, DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2014.957264 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.957264
Published online: 29 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 51
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncny20 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 11 November 2015, At: 06:01
Child Neuropsychology, 2015 Vol. 21, No. 6, 732–750, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.957264
Developmental normative data for the Baron-Hopkins Board test of spatial location memory
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Ida Sue Baron1, Crista Hopp1, and Brandi A. Weiss2 1
Fairfax Neonatal Associates at Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children, Falls Church, VA, USA 2 Department of Educational Leadership, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Developmentally appropriate domain-specific tests with strong psychometric properties for preschoolers are lacking and infrequently developed. Baron’s modification of the Hopkins Board test (B-HB) to assess spatial location learning and recall in 3- and 6-year-old children has shown promise in the study of young children born prematurely. Current study data were analyzed on 172 typically developing children at age 3 years and 193 at age 6 years, born at term (≥ 37 weeks; ≥ 2500 grams). Statistically significant gender differences were found and data stratification of T-scores and percentile ranks are provided for each of the eight B-HB measures. The B-HB’s strong interrater reliability (99.5%), low-to-moderate test-retest reliability across the 3-year age span, Pearson correlations showing criterion validity, and differential functioning from other selective attention and visuospatial/visuoperceptual tests provide initial normative data for this novel measure of spatial location memory in young children. Keywords: Working memory; Neuropsychological test.
Spatial
memory;
Preschool;
Cognitive
assessment;
Test instruments that enable assessment of specific neuropsychological abilities are infrequently developed for preschool-aged children. This lack of developmentally appropriate domain-specific tests with strong psychometric properties for preschoolers has fostered the opinion that measurement of brain integrity is not reliable before early school age. Consequently, the cognitively vibrant ages of 3–6 years, although a period of dynamic structural and functional brain maturation, have long been underinvestigated by pediatric neuropsychologists (Baron & Anderson, 2012). Neurodevelopmental scales have instead been the predominant measures utilized along with parental questionnaires up to around age 3½ years, although they have limited predictive validity (Hack, 2012). As well, cognitive tests developed for typically developing preschoolers and the child development We thank Jason Brandt, PhD, for his generosity in allowing modification of one of his tests, and we are especially grateful to the many parents and children who found time in their busy days to volunteer for Fairfax Neonatal Associates’ PETIT study. Address correspondence to Ida Sue Baron, 2720 Prosperity Avenue, D, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
733
experimental literature often provide limited or no normative data, inhibiting their more widespread clinical use (Baron, 2004; Carlson, 2005). Performance-based tests of emergent specific neuropsychological abilities became more available in the 1990s when instruments with strong psychometric properties for preschool-aged children were published and facilitated assessment of a broad range of neuropsychological outcomes in these crucial early years (Elliott, 1990; Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 1997). The scarcity of neuropsychological studies of preschoolers and the lack of instrumentation are being rectified as increasingly more focus is placed on preschoolage assessment of intelligence (Baron & Leonberger, 2012), executive function (Anderson & Reidy, 2012), language (Conti-Ramsden & Durkin, 2012), attention (Mahone & Schneider, 2012), motor skill (Piek, Hands, & Licari, 2012), and memory (Bauer, Leventon, & Varga, 2012). Indicators of delay and deficit are observable, measureable, and quantifiable for both clinical and research purposes at early age. Narrow-band tests assessing functions not measured by broader IQ measures have become available to examine the effects of neurological disease and injury. Yet, specific domain measurement instruments for preschoolers remain sparse. A well-normed measure of a presumptive specific function(s), albeit an emergent ability, is expected to usefully contribute to an understanding of neural underpinnings of relevant neurodevelopmental or acquired conditions. The absence of a comprehensive literature about the emergence of neuropsychological skills at young ages makes this aspect of preschool pediatric practice a relatively uncharted area of study and application. Permission was granted to modify Brandt’s Hopkins Board test (Brandt, 2003), a presumptive measure of nonverbal working memory, spatial learning, and location recall for use in our Prematurity’s Effects on Toddlers, Infants, and Teens (PETIT) Study, a longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological outcomes in preterm children. We know of no analogous spatial location standardized test of multi-trial nonverbal learning and recall, and the modification has shown promise in early analyses (Baron, Erickson, Ahronovich, Litman, & Brandt, 2010; Baron et al., 2012). Thus, we aimed to report data obtained from typically developing children in support of its use as a developmentally appropriate measure in preschoolers. In turn, it is intended that this will encourage further study of how this measure might contribute to understanding emergent spatial location learning and recall in both clinically diagnosed and other young typically developing groups. METHODS The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Inova Fairfax Medical Center in Fairfax, Virginia, approved the protocol and procedures for the PETIT Study of the neuropsychological outcomes of preterm birth, which include the procedures described below. Participants We analyzed data obtained from typically developing participants enrolled in the PETIT Study: 172 at mean age 3.77 years (0.15) (91 boys and 81 girls) and 193 at mean age 6.47 years (0.28) (101 boys and 92 girls). Seventy-one children (70% of age 6 participants) were tested at both 3 and 6 years. As shown in Table 1, total participants had a mean Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score of 112.3 (13.6) (boys: 109.87 [14.80]; girls: 115.04 [11.59]). Total participants’
Gender, male ESL Ethnicity African American Asian Hispanic White Other
Age 3 Maternal education (years) Paternal education (years) Maternal age (years) Gestational age (weeks) Birth weight (grams) Length of stay (days) Age at testing (years) DAS-II GCA (standard score)
52.9 29.7 0 8.8 5.5 70.3 15.4
0 8 5 64 14
%
n
91 27
1.86 2.39 4.74 1.15 442.64 1.03 0.15 14.80
SD
Boys
16.08 15.90 33.42 38.86 3554.43 2.81 3.79 109.87
M
Table 1 Participant Descriptive Characteristics.
91 90 90 84 84 86 91 91
n
1.2 9.9 9.9 61.7 17.3
– 32.1
– 26 1 8 8 50 14
%
1.93 2.84 5.45 1.06 403.42 0.92 0.15 11.59
SD
n
16.56 15.95 33.88 38.97 3400.43 2.74 3.76 115.04
M
Girls
81 80 80 74 75 74 81 81
n
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
1 16 13 114 28
91 53
n
16.30 15.92 33.64 38.91 3481.79 2.78 3.77 112.3
M
0.6 9.3 7.6 66.3 16.3
52.9 30.8
%
1.90 2.60 5.08 1.11 430.23 0.98 0.15 13.60
SD
Total
(Continued )
172 170 170 158 159 160 172 172
n
734 I. S. BARON ET AL.
1.98 2.24 4.25 1.14 442.19 1.11 0.27 12.14 % – 16.8 5.0 8.9 1.0 68.3 16.9
n
– 17
5 9 1 69 17
SD
16.21 16.30 33.09 38.87 3532.32 2.90 6.49 113.19
M
Boys
101 100 101 99 99 40 101 101
n
3 5 4 67 13
– 17
n
16.50 15.88 33.82 39.03 3426.54 2.76 6.46 114.52
M
Note. DAS-II GCA = Differential Ability Scales, 2nd edition; ESL = English Second Language.
Gender, male ESL Ethnicity African American Asian Hispanic White Other
Age 6 Maternal education (years) Paternal education (years) Maternal age (years) Gestational age (weeks) Birth weight (grams) Length of stay (days) Age at testing (years) DAS-II GCA (standard score)
Table 1 (Continued).
3.3 5.4 4.3 72.8 14.2
– 18.5
%
1.76 2.27 4.94 1.05 418.40 0.96 0.30 10.86
SD
Girls
92 91 92 91 91 37 92 92
n
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
8 14 5 136 30
101 34
n
16.35 16.10 33.44 38.95 3481.66 2.83 6.48 113.82
M
4.1 7.3 2.6 70.5 15.5
52.3 17.6
%
1.88 2.26 4.60 1.10 433.08 1.03 0.28 11.55
SD
Total
193 193
193 191 193 190 190 77 193 193
n
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 735
736
I. S. BARON ET AL.
maternal education in years was 16.3 (1.9) and paternal education was 15.92 (2.6). Mean length of hospital stay after birth was less than three days.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Materials Each participant was individually administered Baron’s modification of the Hopkins Board (B-HB), as described previously (Baron et al., 2010, 2012) and below. The B-HB was administered as part of a larger comprehensive neuropsychological and behavioral test battery. The modifications made for administration to young children included that the board was enlarged to a 15” by 17”, colored bright red and laminated to increase its visual appeal. A random array of nine 3” × 3” boxes replaced the original 3 × 3 grid in the original adult version to limit potential use of verbal cueing strategies should the child learn to “read” the picture names across a row. The number of learning trials was reduced from the adult 12-trial version to an eight-trial form for age 6 years and a five-trial version for age 3 years. Following original instructions for adults (Brandt, 2003), the child is first asked to name nine two-dimensional line drawings of objects or body parts that are individually printed on 3” × 3” laminated stimulus cards. Picture names are not stated aloud again after this trial. Errors are corrected and a naming-accuracy score is recorded (maximum = 9). Then, the colorful board is placed on the table in the correct orientation for the child. The examiner sitting across from the child places each of the cards into nine predetermined outlined printed squares at a rate of one picture per second. After all nine stimulus cards are placed, an additional 5 seconds of viewing time is allowed. The cards are then removed, shuffled and handed to the child one at a time and the examiner encourages the child to place each card in its respective location. Incorrect placements are scored as errors, and the child is asked to move the card to its correct square as pointed to by the examiner. The card is left in place and the next card is handed to the child until all nine cards are located correctly for that trial. This procedure is repeated until there are either two consecutive completely correct trials (all nine pictures placed correctly without help) or the maximum number of allowable trials is reached (five trials for age 3; eight trials for age 6). An additional 5-second study time is allowed after each complete trial including the final trial, at which time the cards and board are removed from sight. For each trial, correct and incorrect placements are recorded. In a delayed-recall condition, after 20– 30 minutes, the examiner asks, “Do you remember those cards for the game with the red board? I want you to tell me the names of as many pictures on those cards as you can remember.” Answers are recorded to obtain the delayed-item name-recall number correct score. Then, the board is placed in front of the child once again, and the child is given the complete deck of nine cards and is asked to place each card correctly, as was done earlier. The child is allowed to self-correct as often as necessary and there is no time limit. The delayed location-recall number correct score is recorded once the child indicates he or she has completed the task. In summary, eight scores are obtained: (1) initial naming number correct (maximum = 9); (2) Trial #1 number correct; (3) last trial number correct; (4) number of learning trial errors (maximum = 45 at age 3; = 72 at age 6); (5) total number of trials (maximum = 5 at age 3; = 8 at age 6); (6) delayed-item name-recall number correct (maximum = 9); (7) delayed location-recall number correct (maximum = 9); and (8) a percent savings score (delayed recall number correct score/last trial number correct
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
737
multiplied by 100). For the latter, scores larger than 100% are possible when a child recalls more picture spatial locations than were recalled on their final learning trial.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Statistical Analysis For statistical analysis a desired family-wise alpha level of .05 was applied, and a Holmes-Sequential Bonferroni-adjusted alpha value was used. All statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0 for Windows. The following statistical assumptions were tested: normality, homogeneity of variances, independence, and linearity. Kline (2011) suggested that non-normal data are defined by extreme skew exceeding absolute values of 3.0, and extreme kurtosis was defined by values exceeding 8.0 to over 20.0. For most B-HB measures, the skew and kurtosis values fell far below these cut-points. For age 3, total number of trials was non-normal (skew = −4.1, kurtosis = 16.3), and, for age 6, last trial was non-normal (skew = −3.8, kurtosis = 16.9). Appropriate nonparametric statistics were used for non-normal measures. RESULTS Percentile Ranks and Normative Data Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for the entire group. Age at time of testing was not statistically significantly correlated with any B-HB measure at age 3 or 6 (p > .05). At age 3, gender was statistically significantly related to B-HB Trial 1, total number of errors, delayed naming, and delayed location (p < .05), but, at age 6, gender was unrelated to any B-HB measures (p > .05). Table 3 shows results from gender comparisons using independent t-tests with Holmes-Sequential Bonferroni-adjusted alpha for potential inflations of family-wise Type I error. Boys made statistically significantly more errors than girls (p < .007), and girls scored statistically significantly higher on delayed naming than boys (p < .006). Due to the statistical significance of gender on several B-HB measures, normative data for B-HB measures were stratified for gender. Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain normative data for B-HB measures. The normative data consist of T-scores and percentile ranks for each of the eight B-HB measures. T-scores were calculated using the standard T-score formula, T = 50 ± 10(Xi-mean)/SD where mean and SD are shown in Table 3 for the corresponding gender and age group. Interrater Reliability Three independent, trained raters scored a random sample of 50 tests from the 3year-old participants (n = 25 males, n = 25 females). Interrater-reliability was analyzed by calculating the percent of rater agreement. Raters only disagreed twice (% of rater agreement = 398/400 = 99.5%). When raters disagreed on scoring, the scores were only off by one point. Test-Retest Reliability A subset of the sample was tested at both ages 3 and 6 (n = 71). Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 7 along with test-retest reliability (as indicated by Pearson’s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Chronological Age Gender B-HB Initial Naming B-HB Trial #1 B-HB Last Trial B-HB # Errors B-HB # of Trials B-HB Delayed Naming B-HB Delayed Location B-HB Savings Score DAS Recognition of Pictures, T-score DAS Pattern Construction, T-score DAS Matrices,T-score DAS Copying, T-score DAS Recall of Digits Forward, T-score Beery VMI, raw score DAS Naming Vocabulary, T-score DAS Picture Similarities, T-score DAS II Word Definitions, T-score DAS II Rapid Naming, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Immediate Recall, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Delayed Recall, T-score (n = 89) WISC-IV Digit Span Forward, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Backwards, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Total, scaled score Corsi Block Span Total, T-score Corsi Block Span Block Span, T-score Corsi Block Span Basal, T-score Means SD n
Table 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients.
−.03 .05 – .09 .03 −.06 −.06 .28 .07 .05 .23 .17 .12 .26 .32 .25 .52 .21
−.04 – .15 .16 .15 −.20 .00 .28 .18 .14 .21 .04 .23 .29 .16 .20 .10 .18
1.47 0.50 172
−.09 .15 .00 −.04 .01 −.04 .13 −.08 −.10 .08 .11 .00 .18 .05 .31 .06 −.02
3.77 0.15 172
7.38 1.49 172
3
2
1
4.63 1.77 172
−.02 .03 .15 – .31 −.60 −.23 .28 .24 .09 .21 .19 .07 .23 .04 .21 .07 .07
4
6.77 1.76 172
.02 −.02 −.01 .12 – −.79 −.32 .23 .60 .15 .28 .22 .22 .20 .08 .17 .13 .13
5
15.51 6.75 172
−.10 −.03 .01 −.55 −.72 – .45 −.30 −.61 −.28 −.32 −.34 −.23 −.31 −.05 −.22 −.15 −.15
6
4.90 0.40 172
−.11 .00 .11 −.38 −.43 .79 – −.17 −.33 −.16 −.15 −.18 −.15 −.17 .02 −.05 −.09 .00
7
2.62 2.11 172
.13 .10 .15 .18 .21 −.31 −.14 – .17 .05 .37 .20 .19 .33 .25 .26 .19 .18
8
4.91 2.89 172
.09 .06 .02 .15 .35 −.37 −.31 .22 – .85 .24 .24 .18 .19 −.02 .12 .11 .14
9
71.06 39.68 172
.08 .06 .04 .09 −.28 .08 −.06 .09 .79 – .13 .17 .09 .12 −.01 .04 .08 .13
10
55.90 11.65 172
−.26 .20 .00 .29 .37 −.42 −.19 .20 .24 −.02 – .35 .28 .30 .34 .12 .38 .21
11
62.28 11.17 172
.07 .01 .08 .14 .25 −.26 −.19 .16 .06 −.10 .06 – .22 .53 .32 .39 .15 .34
12
51.53 7.39 172
.29 .05 .08 .14 .19 −.28 −.25 .21 .18 .06 .05 .28 – .37 .24 .18 .25 .22
13
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
51.84 9.09 172
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – .34 .68 .25 .35
14
.27 .37 .37
52.54 9.52 171
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
15
9.94 1.93 172
.11 .07 .04 .14 .12 −.22 −.20 .26 .03 −.04 .05 .30 .29 – – – .17 .29
16
57.65 11.49 172
.11 .12 .18 .15 .10 −.16 −.03 .22 .10 .04 .27 .07 .29 – – .15 – –
18
(Continued )
57.73 10.01 172
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – .27
17
738 I. S. BARON ET AL.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.09 .01 .19 .07 .07 −.08 .02 .17 .04 .00 .13 .23 .24 – – .13 – .59 –
19
21 .01 −.07 −.09 .22 .29 −.39 −.21 .39 .23 .06 .23 .18 -.04 – – .12 – .13 .11 .17 –
20 −.08 .12 .12 .27 .33 −.38 −.24 .28 .29 .07 .27 .28 .25 – – .20 – .18 .04 –
−.04 −.01 −.11 .17 .34 −.38 −.32 .29 .22 .03 .20 .12 .06 – – .13 – .07 .08 .19 .53 –
22 .08 −.04 .14 .12 .17 −.18 −.09 .15 .04 −.06 .07 .27 .24 – – .21 – .33 .38 .28 .13 .12 –
23 −.09 .10 .06 .20 .15 −.25 −.14 .24 .07 −.04 .13 .24 .16 – – .18 – .20 .20 .24 .11 .23 .35 –
24 .09 .03 .11 .19 .19 −.26 −.148* .25 .08 −.04 .11 .32 .28 – – .25 – .34 .37 .29 .17 .19 .85 .75 –
25
Note. 3-year-olds are in the bottom triangle and 6-year olds are in the top triangle. Bolded values were statistically significant at p < .05.
Chronological Age Gender B-HB Initial Naming B-HB Trial #1 B-HB Last Trial B-HB # Errors B-HB # of Trials B-HB Delayed Naming B-HB Delayed Location B-HB Savings Score DAS Recognition of Pictures, T-score DAS Pattern Construction, T-score DAS Matrices,T-score DAS Copying, T-score DAS Recall of Digits Forward, T-score Beery VMI, raw score DAS Naming Vocabulary, T-score DAS Picture Similarities, T-score DAS II Word Definitions, T-score DAS II Rapid Naming, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Immediate Recall, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Delayed Recall, T-score (n = 89) WISC-IV Digit Span Forward, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Backwards, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Total, scaled score Corsi Block Span Total, T-score Corsi Block Span Block Span, T-score Corsi Block Span Basal, T-score
Table 2 (Continued).
.16 .07 −.09 .11 .21 −.27 −.28 .10 .21 .05 .20 .35 .23 – – .27 – .20 .17 .32 −.02 .07 .22 .26 .31 –
26 .12 .17 −.07 .02 .14 −.13 −.14 .15 .23 .12 .28 .31 .11 – – .20 – .12 .06 .33 .18 .12 .15 .21 .22 .65 –
27
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
0.28 0.50 0.40 1.59 0.68 5.99 1.75 1.78 1.25 14.88 10.19 8.25 10.07
14.80 9.74 8.37 7.74 9.38 10.47 2.80 2.57 2.62 8.32 8.17 8.66
101.86 56.91 57.67 53.49 55.15 54.10 11.29 11.09 11.28 43.53 49.94 42.69 .19 .26 .25 −.05 .00 .22 .14 .24 .67 .34 –
SD
6.48 1.48 8.85 5.63 8.77 8.88 5.80 6.39 8.24 94.32 55.33 58.42 56.33
Mean
.11 .12 −.01 .17 .17 −.28 −.30 .01 .14 .01 .15 .27 .18 – – .15
28
193 193 88 89 89 192 192 192 191 191 191
191
193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 192 192 88 190 193
n
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 739
8.88 8.85 5.63 8.77 5.80 6.39 8.24 94.32
Age 6 # of Errors Initial Naming Trial #1 Last Trialb # Trials Delayed Naming Delayed Location Savings Score
(n = 193) 5.99 0.40 1.59 0.68 1.75 1.78 1.25 14.88
(n = 172) 6.75 1.49 1.77 1.76 0.40 2.11 2.89 39.68
SD
0.43 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.09 1.07
0.51 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.16 0.22 3.03
SEM
9.07 8.83 5.58 8.78 5.79 6.23 8.18 93.52
16.80 7.18 4.37 6.53 4.90 2.07 4.42 65.86
M
(n = 101) 6.17 0.40 1.59 0.74 1.78 1.94 1.31 15.81
(n = 91) 6.91 1.60 1.49 1.79 .40 1.90 2.91 41.52
SD
Boys
0.614 0.04 0.16 0.07 0.18 0.19 0.13 1.57
0.73 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.04 0.20 0.31 4.35
SEM
8.67 8.87 5.68 8.76 5.80 6.58 8.32 95.21
14.06 7.62 4.93 7.04 4.90 3.25 5.47 76.91
M
(n = 92) 5.82 0.40 1.59 0.60 1.72 1.57 1.18 13.80
(n = 81) 6.29 1.34 2.01 1.69 0.41 2.17 2.77 36.90
SD
Girls
0.61 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.18 0.16 0.12 1.45
0.70 0.15 0.22 0.19 0.05 0.24 0.31 4.10
SEM
0.46 ‒0.66 ‒0.44 Z = 0.22 ‒0.05 ‒1.36 ‒0.78 ‒0.79
2.71 ‒1.95 ‒2.07 ‒1.91 Z = −0.10 ‒3.81 ‒2.42 ‒1.84
t
.648 .512 .661 .823 .961 .175 .439 .432
.007* .052 .040 .058 .919 99 53
– – – – – – – 4 29 54
– – 8 – 23 30 38 45 53 60
T
1 – 2 3 5 12 21 55 81 >99
PR
5 – 18 24 30 36 43 49 55 61
T
Boys
– – – – – – – 2 10.9 >99
– – 1 – 2 7 15 40 72 >99
PR
Girls
– – 27 34 40 46 53 59 65 72
– 27 34 41 48 54 61 68 74 –
T
– – 2.97 10 24.8 46.5 72.3 87.1 98 >99
– 3 8 30 55 76 92 99 >99 –
PR
Boys
– 21 – 33 39 46 52 58 65 71
– 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
T
Trial #1
PR
– – – – 25 1 30 5 36 14 41 31 47 47 53 63 58 86 64 >99
T
Boys
– – – 1 – – – – – 10 – – 21.7 –15 0.99 42.4 – – 71.7 12 2.97 88 26 6 95.7 39 10.9 >99 53 >99
– 4 14 26 41 60 78 88 98 >99
PR
Girls
–– – – – – – 4 21 37 54
– 14 – 26 32 38 44 50 56 62
T
Last Trial
PR
NP NP NP NP – – 48 >99 73 7 98 3 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
T
Boys
– NP NP – NP NP – – – – 38 >99 – 43 70.3 – 49 63.4 1 54 45.5 7 60 30.7 16.3 66 10.9 >99 NP NP
– 1 – 2 7 17 35 57 75 >99
PR
Girls
NP NP 37 43 49 55 60 66 72 NP
NP NP – 48 72 96 NP NP NP NP
T
NP NP >99 72.8 64.1 46.7 25 10 1 NP
NP NP – >99 6 4 NP NP NP NP
PR
Girls
Total # Trials (Lower is better)
18 23 28 33 39 44 49 54 59 64
39 44 50 55 60 65 – 76 – –
T
0.99 2.97 6 9 16.8 28.7 48.5 73.3 91.1 >99
31 46 57 76 90 97 – >99 – –
PR
Boys
– – 21 27 34 40 46 53 59 65
35 40 44 49 53 58 63 67 72 –
T
– – 2 5 9 20.7 42.4 72.8 90.2 >99
12 27 38 56 68 81 94 99 >99 –
PR
Girls
Delayed Naming
– – 3 – – 26 33 41 – 56
35 38 42 45 49 52 55 59 – 66
T
– – 0.99 – – 2.97 10.9 32.7 – >99
10 21 31 40 53 64 74 84 – >99
PR
Boys
– – – 5 – 22 30 39 – 56
30 34 37 41 45 48 52 56 59 63
T
– – – 1 – 2 7 28.6 – >99
5 10 16 28 36 47 59 75 77 >99
PR
Girls
Delayed Location
Note. NP = score not possible; T = T-score; PR = percentile rank. Lower scores are more desirable for Total # of Trials. Higher scores are more desirable for all other variables. n = 91 boys age 3; n = 81 girls age 3; n = 101 boys age 6; n = 92 girls age 6.
Age 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Raw Score
Initial Naming
Table 4 Standard Scores (T-scores) and Percentile Ranks for Ages 3 and 6 by Gender.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 741
742
I. S. BARON ET AL.
Table 5 Percentile Ranks and Standard T-scores for Total Number of Errors. 3-Year-Olds
6-Year-Olds
Boys
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
# Errors Raw Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35+
Girls
Boys
Girls
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
74 73 71 70 69 67 66 64 63 61 60 58 57 55 54 53 51 50 48 47 45 44 42 41 40 38 37 35 34 32 31 29 28 27 25 ≤24
– – >99 98 97 – 96 93 90 – 88 84 77 74 69 64 53 45 44 40 35 30 25 23 15 13 – 11 10 5 4 2 1 – – –
72 71 69 68 66 64 63 61 60 58 56 55 53 52 50 49 47 45 44 42 41 39 37 36 34 33 31 29 28 26 25 23 21 20 18 ≤17
– >99 99 – 98 94 89 88 85 80 77 69 63 59 47 44 38 36 33 30 21 19 15 7 5 – – 4 2 – – – – – – –
65 63 61 60 58 57 55 53 52 50 48 47 45 44 42 40 39 37 36 34 32 31 29 27 26 24 23 21 19 18 16 14 13 11 10 ≤8
– >99 95 90 83 78 67 61 53 47 41 32 29 23 19 14 11 10 8 6 – 5 – – 4 3 – – – – – 2 – – – 1
65 63 61 60 58 56 55 53 51 49 48 46 44 43 41 39 37 36 34 32 31 29 27 25 24 22 20 19 17 15 13 12 10 8 6 ≤5
>99 99 95 89 85 74 67 59 48 39 33 30 26 22 17 – 16 13 10 7 – 5 4 2 – – – – – 1 – – – – – –
Note. T = T-score; PR = percentile rank. n = 91 boys age 3; n = 81 girls age 3; n = 101 boys age 6; n = 92 girls age 6.
correlation coefficients) and dependent t-tests. Test-retest analyses were conducted both using the raw data and the standardized age- and gender-corrected T-scores. This allowed us to investigate absolute and relative changes across time. Three-year test-retest reliability was similar for raw and T-score comparisons and was statistically significant and moderate in size for number of errors (r = .401 and .385, p = .001 and .001, respectively) and the last trial (i.e., Trial 5 for 3-year-olds, Trial 8 for 6-year-olds; r = .355 and .370, p = .002 and .001, respectively). For all other indices, the test-retest reliability was low
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
743
Table 6 Percentile Ranks and Standard T-scores for Savings Scores. 3-Year-Olds Males
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Savings Score 0.00 12.50 14.29 16.67 20.00 25.00 28.57 33.33 37.50 40.00 42.86 44.44 50.00 55.56 57.14 60.00 62.50 66.67 71.43 75.00 77.78 80.00 83.33 85.71 87.50 88.89 100.00 112.50 116.67 120.00 125.00 128.57 150.00 175.00 180.00 200.00
6-Year-Olds Females
Males
Females
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
34 – – 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 45 46 – 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 53 – 55 55 – 58 61 62 63 64 65 70 76 77 –
10 – – 14 16 22 24 26 29 31 33 34 42 – 45 46 51 54 56 59 62 63 – 66 70 – 86 88 90 92 95 97 98 99 >99 –
29 33 33 34 – 36 – 38 39 40 41 41 – 44 45 45 – 47 49 49 50 – 52 52 53 53 56 60 61 – – 64 – – 78 83
5 6 7 9 – 10 – 12 14 16 23 25 – 26 28 31 – 37 43 46 48 – 51 53 60 62 85 91 96 – – 98 – – 99 >99
– – – – – – 9 – – – – – – 26 – – – 33 – 38 40 – – – 46 – 54 62 – – – – 86 – – –
– – – – – – 1 – – – – – – 3 – – – 8 – 9 26 – – – 29 – 97 98 – – – – >99 – – –
T – – – – – – – 5.16 – – – – – – – – 26 29 – 35 37 – – 43 44 – 53 63 – – – 74 90 – – –
PR – – – – – – – 1.1 – – – – – – – – 2 4 – 5 19 – – 20 25 – 96 98 – – – 99 >99 – – –
Note. PR = percentile rank; T = T-score. n = 91 males age 3; n = 81 females age 3; n = 101 males age 6; n = 92 females age 6.
and not statistically significant (r < .277, p > α). Dependent t-tests indicated that participants statistically significantly decreased in raw scores the number of errors from age 3 to age 6 and in initial naming, Trial 1, Last Trial, delayed naming, and delayed location recall. However, no statistically significant differences were found in scores across time for T-score comparisons.
1.13 1.63 1.59 5.77 0.35 1.94 2.86 37.27 7.25 9.33 9.15 8.68 8.67 8.88 9.94 9.43
7.69 4.37 6.96 15.04 4.93 2.35 5.01 70.56
52.12 48.46 51.08 50.71 49.26 48.66 50.37 49.88
SD
48.80 48.59 48.50 47.34 47.78 46.92 48.26 49.20
8.80 5.41 8.66 10.46 6.18 5.87 8.04 93.38
M
Age 6
10.81 9.94 12.39 10.88 9.28 11.05 11.95 12.16
0.44 1.58 0.86 6.57 1.62 2.01 1.49 18.17
SD
0.083 −0.170 0.370 0.385 0.277 0.171 0.060 −0.138
0.107 −0.169 0.355 0.401 0.273 0.184 0.070 −0.148
r
Correlations
0.490 0.157 0.001* 0.001* 0.019 0.155 0.619 0.250
0.376 0.158 0.002* 0.001* 0.021 0.125 0.559 0.218
p
2.24 –0.07 Z = −0.80 2.58 Z = −1.54 1.13 1.18 0.35
8.04 3.57 Z = −5.30 −5.68 Z = −6.48 11.76 8.16 −4.39
t
.028 .942 .422 .012 .123 .263 .243 .730
ISSN: 0929-7049 (Print) 1744-4136 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncny20
Developmental normative data for the BaronHopkins Board test of spatial location memory Ida Sue Baron, Crista Hopp & Brandi A. Weiss To cite this article: Ida Sue Baron, Crista Hopp & Brandi A. Weiss (2015) Developmental normative data for the Baron-Hopkins Board test of spatial location memory, Child Neuropsychology, 21:6, 732-750, DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2014.957264 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.957264
Published online: 29 Sep 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 51
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncny20 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]
Date: 11 November 2015, At: 06:01
Child Neuropsychology, 2015 Vol. 21, No. 6, 732–750, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2014.957264
Developmental normative data for the Baron-Hopkins Board test of spatial location memory
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Ida Sue Baron1, Crista Hopp1, and Brandi A. Weiss2 1
Fairfax Neonatal Associates at Inova Fairfax Hospital for Children, Falls Church, VA, USA 2 Department of Educational Leadership, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Developmentally appropriate domain-specific tests with strong psychometric properties for preschoolers are lacking and infrequently developed. Baron’s modification of the Hopkins Board test (B-HB) to assess spatial location learning and recall in 3- and 6-year-old children has shown promise in the study of young children born prematurely. Current study data were analyzed on 172 typically developing children at age 3 years and 193 at age 6 years, born at term (≥ 37 weeks; ≥ 2500 grams). Statistically significant gender differences were found and data stratification of T-scores and percentile ranks are provided for each of the eight B-HB measures. The B-HB’s strong interrater reliability (99.5%), low-to-moderate test-retest reliability across the 3-year age span, Pearson correlations showing criterion validity, and differential functioning from other selective attention and visuospatial/visuoperceptual tests provide initial normative data for this novel measure of spatial location memory in young children. Keywords: Working memory; Neuropsychological test.
Spatial
memory;
Preschool;
Cognitive
assessment;
Test instruments that enable assessment of specific neuropsychological abilities are infrequently developed for preschool-aged children. This lack of developmentally appropriate domain-specific tests with strong psychometric properties for preschoolers has fostered the opinion that measurement of brain integrity is not reliable before early school age. Consequently, the cognitively vibrant ages of 3–6 years, although a period of dynamic structural and functional brain maturation, have long been underinvestigated by pediatric neuropsychologists (Baron & Anderson, 2012). Neurodevelopmental scales have instead been the predominant measures utilized along with parental questionnaires up to around age 3½ years, although they have limited predictive validity (Hack, 2012). As well, cognitive tests developed for typically developing preschoolers and the child development We thank Jason Brandt, PhD, for his generosity in allowing modification of one of his tests, and we are especially grateful to the many parents and children who found time in their busy days to volunteer for Fairfax Neonatal Associates’ PETIT study. Address correspondence to Ida Sue Baron, 2720 Prosperity Avenue, D, Fairfax, VA 22031, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
733
experimental literature often provide limited or no normative data, inhibiting their more widespread clinical use (Baron, 2004; Carlson, 2005). Performance-based tests of emergent specific neuropsychological abilities became more available in the 1990s when instruments with strong psychometric properties for preschool-aged children were published and facilitated assessment of a broad range of neuropsychological outcomes in these crucial early years (Elliott, 1990; Korkman, Kirk, & Kemp, 1997). The scarcity of neuropsychological studies of preschoolers and the lack of instrumentation are being rectified as increasingly more focus is placed on preschoolage assessment of intelligence (Baron & Leonberger, 2012), executive function (Anderson & Reidy, 2012), language (Conti-Ramsden & Durkin, 2012), attention (Mahone & Schneider, 2012), motor skill (Piek, Hands, & Licari, 2012), and memory (Bauer, Leventon, & Varga, 2012). Indicators of delay and deficit are observable, measureable, and quantifiable for both clinical and research purposes at early age. Narrow-band tests assessing functions not measured by broader IQ measures have become available to examine the effects of neurological disease and injury. Yet, specific domain measurement instruments for preschoolers remain sparse. A well-normed measure of a presumptive specific function(s), albeit an emergent ability, is expected to usefully contribute to an understanding of neural underpinnings of relevant neurodevelopmental or acquired conditions. The absence of a comprehensive literature about the emergence of neuropsychological skills at young ages makes this aspect of preschool pediatric practice a relatively uncharted area of study and application. Permission was granted to modify Brandt’s Hopkins Board test (Brandt, 2003), a presumptive measure of nonverbal working memory, spatial learning, and location recall for use in our Prematurity’s Effects on Toddlers, Infants, and Teens (PETIT) Study, a longitudinal investigation of neuropsychological outcomes in preterm children. We know of no analogous spatial location standardized test of multi-trial nonverbal learning and recall, and the modification has shown promise in early analyses (Baron, Erickson, Ahronovich, Litman, & Brandt, 2010; Baron et al., 2012). Thus, we aimed to report data obtained from typically developing children in support of its use as a developmentally appropriate measure in preschoolers. In turn, it is intended that this will encourage further study of how this measure might contribute to understanding emergent spatial location learning and recall in both clinically diagnosed and other young typically developing groups. METHODS The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Inova Fairfax Medical Center in Fairfax, Virginia, approved the protocol and procedures for the PETIT Study of the neuropsychological outcomes of preterm birth, which include the procedures described below. Participants We analyzed data obtained from typically developing participants enrolled in the PETIT Study: 172 at mean age 3.77 years (0.15) (91 boys and 81 girls) and 193 at mean age 6.47 years (0.28) (101 boys and 92 girls). Seventy-one children (70% of age 6 participants) were tested at both 3 and 6 years. As shown in Table 1, total participants had a mean Differential Ability Scales-II (DAS-II) General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score of 112.3 (13.6) (boys: 109.87 [14.80]; girls: 115.04 [11.59]). Total participants’
Gender, male ESL Ethnicity African American Asian Hispanic White Other
Age 3 Maternal education (years) Paternal education (years) Maternal age (years) Gestational age (weeks) Birth weight (grams) Length of stay (days) Age at testing (years) DAS-II GCA (standard score)
52.9 29.7 0 8.8 5.5 70.3 15.4
0 8 5 64 14
%
n
91 27
1.86 2.39 4.74 1.15 442.64 1.03 0.15 14.80
SD
Boys
16.08 15.90 33.42 38.86 3554.43 2.81 3.79 109.87
M
Table 1 Participant Descriptive Characteristics.
91 90 90 84 84 86 91 91
n
1.2 9.9 9.9 61.7 17.3
– 32.1
– 26 1 8 8 50 14
%
1.93 2.84 5.45 1.06 403.42 0.92 0.15 11.59
SD
n
16.56 15.95 33.88 38.97 3400.43 2.74 3.76 115.04
M
Girls
81 80 80 74 75 74 81 81
n
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
1 16 13 114 28
91 53
n
16.30 15.92 33.64 38.91 3481.79 2.78 3.77 112.3
M
0.6 9.3 7.6 66.3 16.3
52.9 30.8
%
1.90 2.60 5.08 1.11 430.23 0.98 0.15 13.60
SD
Total
(Continued )
172 170 170 158 159 160 172 172
n
734 I. S. BARON ET AL.
1.98 2.24 4.25 1.14 442.19 1.11 0.27 12.14 % – 16.8 5.0 8.9 1.0 68.3 16.9
n
– 17
5 9 1 69 17
SD
16.21 16.30 33.09 38.87 3532.32 2.90 6.49 113.19
M
Boys
101 100 101 99 99 40 101 101
n
3 5 4 67 13
– 17
n
16.50 15.88 33.82 39.03 3426.54 2.76 6.46 114.52
M
Note. DAS-II GCA = Differential Ability Scales, 2nd edition; ESL = English Second Language.
Gender, male ESL Ethnicity African American Asian Hispanic White Other
Age 6 Maternal education (years) Paternal education (years) Maternal age (years) Gestational age (weeks) Birth weight (grams) Length of stay (days) Age at testing (years) DAS-II GCA (standard score)
Table 1 (Continued).
3.3 5.4 4.3 72.8 14.2
– 18.5
%
1.76 2.27 4.94 1.05 418.40 0.96 0.30 10.86
SD
Girls
92 91 92 91 91 37 92 92
n
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
8 14 5 136 30
101 34
n
16.35 16.10 33.44 38.95 3481.66 2.83 6.48 113.82
M
4.1 7.3 2.6 70.5 15.5
52.3 17.6
%
1.88 2.26 4.60 1.10 433.08 1.03 0.28 11.55
SD
Total
193 193
193 191 193 190 190 77 193 193
n
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 735
736
I. S. BARON ET AL.
maternal education in years was 16.3 (1.9) and paternal education was 15.92 (2.6). Mean length of hospital stay after birth was less than three days.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Materials Each participant was individually administered Baron’s modification of the Hopkins Board (B-HB), as described previously (Baron et al., 2010, 2012) and below. The B-HB was administered as part of a larger comprehensive neuropsychological and behavioral test battery. The modifications made for administration to young children included that the board was enlarged to a 15” by 17”, colored bright red and laminated to increase its visual appeal. A random array of nine 3” × 3” boxes replaced the original 3 × 3 grid in the original adult version to limit potential use of verbal cueing strategies should the child learn to “read” the picture names across a row. The number of learning trials was reduced from the adult 12-trial version to an eight-trial form for age 6 years and a five-trial version for age 3 years. Following original instructions for adults (Brandt, 2003), the child is first asked to name nine two-dimensional line drawings of objects or body parts that are individually printed on 3” × 3” laminated stimulus cards. Picture names are not stated aloud again after this trial. Errors are corrected and a naming-accuracy score is recorded (maximum = 9). Then, the colorful board is placed on the table in the correct orientation for the child. The examiner sitting across from the child places each of the cards into nine predetermined outlined printed squares at a rate of one picture per second. After all nine stimulus cards are placed, an additional 5 seconds of viewing time is allowed. The cards are then removed, shuffled and handed to the child one at a time and the examiner encourages the child to place each card in its respective location. Incorrect placements are scored as errors, and the child is asked to move the card to its correct square as pointed to by the examiner. The card is left in place and the next card is handed to the child until all nine cards are located correctly for that trial. This procedure is repeated until there are either two consecutive completely correct trials (all nine pictures placed correctly without help) or the maximum number of allowable trials is reached (five trials for age 3; eight trials for age 6). An additional 5-second study time is allowed after each complete trial including the final trial, at which time the cards and board are removed from sight. For each trial, correct and incorrect placements are recorded. In a delayed-recall condition, after 20– 30 minutes, the examiner asks, “Do you remember those cards for the game with the red board? I want you to tell me the names of as many pictures on those cards as you can remember.” Answers are recorded to obtain the delayed-item name-recall number correct score. Then, the board is placed in front of the child once again, and the child is given the complete deck of nine cards and is asked to place each card correctly, as was done earlier. The child is allowed to self-correct as often as necessary and there is no time limit. The delayed location-recall number correct score is recorded once the child indicates he or she has completed the task. In summary, eight scores are obtained: (1) initial naming number correct (maximum = 9); (2) Trial #1 number correct; (3) last trial number correct; (4) number of learning trial errors (maximum = 45 at age 3; = 72 at age 6); (5) total number of trials (maximum = 5 at age 3; = 8 at age 6); (6) delayed-item name-recall number correct (maximum = 9); (7) delayed location-recall number correct (maximum = 9); and (8) a percent savings score (delayed recall number correct score/last trial number correct
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
737
multiplied by 100). For the latter, scores larger than 100% are possible when a child recalls more picture spatial locations than were recalled on their final learning trial.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Statistical Analysis For statistical analysis a desired family-wise alpha level of .05 was applied, and a Holmes-Sequential Bonferroni-adjusted alpha value was used. All statistical analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0 for Windows. The following statistical assumptions were tested: normality, homogeneity of variances, independence, and linearity. Kline (2011) suggested that non-normal data are defined by extreme skew exceeding absolute values of 3.0, and extreme kurtosis was defined by values exceeding 8.0 to over 20.0. For most B-HB measures, the skew and kurtosis values fell far below these cut-points. For age 3, total number of trials was non-normal (skew = −4.1, kurtosis = 16.3), and, for age 6, last trial was non-normal (skew = −3.8, kurtosis = 16.9). Appropriate nonparametric statistics were used for non-normal measures. RESULTS Percentile Ranks and Normative Data Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics and Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for the entire group. Age at time of testing was not statistically significantly correlated with any B-HB measure at age 3 or 6 (p > .05). At age 3, gender was statistically significantly related to B-HB Trial 1, total number of errors, delayed naming, and delayed location (p < .05), but, at age 6, gender was unrelated to any B-HB measures (p > .05). Table 3 shows results from gender comparisons using independent t-tests with Holmes-Sequential Bonferroni-adjusted alpha for potential inflations of family-wise Type I error. Boys made statistically significantly more errors than girls (p < .007), and girls scored statistically significantly higher on delayed naming than boys (p < .006). Due to the statistical significance of gender on several B-HB measures, normative data for B-HB measures were stratified for gender. Tables 4, 5, and 6 contain normative data for B-HB measures. The normative data consist of T-scores and percentile ranks for each of the eight B-HB measures. T-scores were calculated using the standard T-score formula, T = 50 ± 10(Xi-mean)/SD where mean and SD are shown in Table 3 for the corresponding gender and age group. Interrater Reliability Three independent, trained raters scored a random sample of 50 tests from the 3year-old participants (n = 25 males, n = 25 females). Interrater-reliability was analyzed by calculating the percent of rater agreement. Raters only disagreed twice (% of rater agreement = 398/400 = 99.5%). When raters disagreed on scoring, the scores were only off by one point. Test-Retest Reliability A subset of the sample was tested at both ages 3 and 6 (n = 71). Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 7 along with test-retest reliability (as indicated by Pearson’s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Chronological Age Gender B-HB Initial Naming B-HB Trial #1 B-HB Last Trial B-HB # Errors B-HB # of Trials B-HB Delayed Naming B-HB Delayed Location B-HB Savings Score DAS Recognition of Pictures, T-score DAS Pattern Construction, T-score DAS Matrices,T-score DAS Copying, T-score DAS Recall of Digits Forward, T-score Beery VMI, raw score DAS Naming Vocabulary, T-score DAS Picture Similarities, T-score DAS II Word Definitions, T-score DAS II Rapid Naming, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Immediate Recall, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Delayed Recall, T-score (n = 89) WISC-IV Digit Span Forward, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Backwards, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Total, scaled score Corsi Block Span Total, T-score Corsi Block Span Block Span, T-score Corsi Block Span Basal, T-score Means SD n
Table 2 Pearson Correlation Coefficients.
−.03 .05 – .09 .03 −.06 −.06 .28 .07 .05 .23 .17 .12 .26 .32 .25 .52 .21
−.04 – .15 .16 .15 −.20 .00 .28 .18 .14 .21 .04 .23 .29 .16 .20 .10 .18
1.47 0.50 172
−.09 .15 .00 −.04 .01 −.04 .13 −.08 −.10 .08 .11 .00 .18 .05 .31 .06 −.02
3.77 0.15 172
7.38 1.49 172
3
2
1
4.63 1.77 172
−.02 .03 .15 – .31 −.60 −.23 .28 .24 .09 .21 .19 .07 .23 .04 .21 .07 .07
4
6.77 1.76 172
.02 −.02 −.01 .12 – −.79 −.32 .23 .60 .15 .28 .22 .22 .20 .08 .17 .13 .13
5
15.51 6.75 172
−.10 −.03 .01 −.55 −.72 – .45 −.30 −.61 −.28 −.32 −.34 −.23 −.31 −.05 −.22 −.15 −.15
6
4.90 0.40 172
−.11 .00 .11 −.38 −.43 .79 – −.17 −.33 −.16 −.15 −.18 −.15 −.17 .02 −.05 −.09 .00
7
2.62 2.11 172
.13 .10 .15 .18 .21 −.31 −.14 – .17 .05 .37 .20 .19 .33 .25 .26 .19 .18
8
4.91 2.89 172
.09 .06 .02 .15 .35 −.37 −.31 .22 – .85 .24 .24 .18 .19 −.02 .12 .11 .14
9
71.06 39.68 172
.08 .06 .04 .09 −.28 .08 −.06 .09 .79 – .13 .17 .09 .12 −.01 .04 .08 .13
10
55.90 11.65 172
−.26 .20 .00 .29 .37 −.42 −.19 .20 .24 −.02 – .35 .28 .30 .34 .12 .38 .21
11
62.28 11.17 172
.07 .01 .08 .14 .25 −.26 −.19 .16 .06 −.10 .06 – .22 .53 .32 .39 .15 .34
12
51.53 7.39 172
.29 .05 .08 .14 .19 −.28 −.25 .21 .18 .06 .05 .28 – .37 .24 .18 .25 .22
13
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
51.84 9.09 172
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – .34 .68 .25 .35
14
.27 .37 .37
52.54 9.52 171
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
15
9.94 1.93 172
.11 .07 .04 .14 .12 −.22 −.20 .26 .03 −.04 .05 .30 .29 – – – .17 .29
16
57.65 11.49 172
.11 .12 .18 .15 .10 −.16 −.03 .22 .10 .04 .27 .07 .29 – – .15 – –
18
(Continued )
57.73 10.01 172
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – .27
17
738 I. S. BARON ET AL.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
.09 .01 .19 .07 .07 −.08 .02 .17 .04 .00 .13 .23 .24 – – .13 – .59 –
19
21 .01 −.07 −.09 .22 .29 −.39 −.21 .39 .23 .06 .23 .18 -.04 – – .12 – .13 .11 .17 –
20 −.08 .12 .12 .27 .33 −.38 −.24 .28 .29 .07 .27 .28 .25 – – .20 – .18 .04 –
−.04 −.01 −.11 .17 .34 −.38 −.32 .29 .22 .03 .20 .12 .06 – – .13 – .07 .08 .19 .53 –
22 .08 −.04 .14 .12 .17 −.18 −.09 .15 .04 −.06 .07 .27 .24 – – .21 – .33 .38 .28 .13 .12 –
23 −.09 .10 .06 .20 .15 −.25 −.14 .24 .07 −.04 .13 .24 .16 – – .18 – .20 .20 .24 .11 .23 .35 –
24 .09 .03 .11 .19 .19 −.26 −.148* .25 .08 −.04 .11 .32 .28 – – .25 – .34 .37 .29 .17 .19 .85 .75 –
25
Note. 3-year-olds are in the bottom triangle and 6-year olds are in the top triangle. Bolded values were statistically significant at p < .05.
Chronological Age Gender B-HB Initial Naming B-HB Trial #1 B-HB Last Trial B-HB # Errors B-HB # of Trials B-HB Delayed Naming B-HB Delayed Location B-HB Savings Score DAS Recognition of Pictures, T-score DAS Pattern Construction, T-score DAS Matrices,T-score DAS Copying, T-score DAS Recall of Digits Forward, T-score Beery VMI, raw score DAS Naming Vocabulary, T-score DAS Picture Similarities, T-score DAS II Word Definitions, T-score DAS II Rapid Naming, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Immediate Recall, T-score (n = 88) DAS II Delayed Recall, T-score (n = 89) WISC-IV Digit Span Forward, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Backwards, scaled score WISC-IV Digit Span Total, scaled score Corsi Block Span Total, T-score Corsi Block Span Block Span, T-score Corsi Block Span Basal, T-score
Table 2 (Continued).
.16 .07 −.09 .11 .21 −.27 −.28 .10 .21 .05 .20 .35 .23 – – .27 – .20 .17 .32 −.02 .07 .22 .26 .31 –
26 .12 .17 −.07 .02 .14 −.13 −.14 .15 .23 .12 .28 .31 .11 – – .20 – .12 .06 .33 .18 .12 .15 .21 .22 .65 –
27
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
0.28 0.50 0.40 1.59 0.68 5.99 1.75 1.78 1.25 14.88 10.19 8.25 10.07
14.80 9.74 8.37 7.74 9.38 10.47 2.80 2.57 2.62 8.32 8.17 8.66
101.86 56.91 57.67 53.49 55.15 54.10 11.29 11.09 11.28 43.53 49.94 42.69 .19 .26 .25 −.05 .00 .22 .14 .24 .67 .34 –
SD
6.48 1.48 8.85 5.63 8.77 8.88 5.80 6.39 8.24 94.32 55.33 58.42 56.33
Mean
.11 .12 −.01 .17 .17 −.28 −.30 .01 .14 .01 .15 .27 .18 – – .15
28
193 193 88 89 89 192 192 192 191 191 191
191
193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 192 192 88 190 193
n
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 739
8.88 8.85 5.63 8.77 5.80 6.39 8.24 94.32
Age 6 # of Errors Initial Naming Trial #1 Last Trialb # Trials Delayed Naming Delayed Location Savings Score
(n = 193) 5.99 0.40 1.59 0.68 1.75 1.78 1.25 14.88
(n = 172) 6.75 1.49 1.77 1.76 0.40 2.11 2.89 39.68
SD
0.43 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.13 0.09 1.07
0.51 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.03 0.16 0.22 3.03
SEM
9.07 8.83 5.58 8.78 5.79 6.23 8.18 93.52
16.80 7.18 4.37 6.53 4.90 2.07 4.42 65.86
M
(n = 101) 6.17 0.40 1.59 0.74 1.78 1.94 1.31 15.81
(n = 91) 6.91 1.60 1.49 1.79 .40 1.90 2.91 41.52
SD
Boys
0.614 0.04 0.16 0.07 0.18 0.19 0.13 1.57
0.73 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.04 0.20 0.31 4.35
SEM
8.67 8.87 5.68 8.76 5.80 6.58 8.32 95.21
14.06 7.62 4.93 7.04 4.90 3.25 5.47 76.91
M
(n = 92) 5.82 0.40 1.59 0.60 1.72 1.57 1.18 13.80
(n = 81) 6.29 1.34 2.01 1.69 0.41 2.17 2.77 36.90
SD
Girls
0.61 0.04 0.17 0.06 0.18 0.16 0.12 1.45
0.70 0.15 0.22 0.19 0.05 0.24 0.31 4.10
SEM
0.46 ‒0.66 ‒0.44 Z = 0.22 ‒0.05 ‒1.36 ‒0.78 ‒0.79
2.71 ‒1.95 ‒2.07 ‒1.91 Z = −0.10 ‒3.81 ‒2.42 ‒1.84
t
.648 .512 .661 .823 .961 .175 .439 .432
.007* .052 .040 .058 .919 99 53
– – – – – – – 4 29 54
– – 8 – 23 30 38 45 53 60
T
1 – 2 3 5 12 21 55 81 >99
PR
5 – 18 24 30 36 43 49 55 61
T
Boys
– – – – – – – 2 10.9 >99
– – 1 – 2 7 15 40 72 >99
PR
Girls
– – 27 34 40 46 53 59 65 72
– 27 34 41 48 54 61 68 74 –
T
– – 2.97 10 24.8 46.5 72.3 87.1 98 >99
– 3 8 30 55 76 92 99 >99 –
PR
Boys
– 21 – 33 39 46 52 58 65 71
– 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
T
Trial #1
PR
– – – – 25 1 30 5 36 14 41 31 47 47 53 63 58 86 64 >99
T
Boys
– – – 1 – – – – – 10 – – 21.7 –15 0.99 42.4 – – 71.7 12 2.97 88 26 6 95.7 39 10.9 >99 53 >99
– 4 14 26 41 60 78 88 98 >99
PR
Girls
–– – – – – – 4 21 37 54
– 14 – 26 32 38 44 50 56 62
T
Last Trial
PR
NP NP NP NP – – 48 >99 73 7 98 3 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
T
Boys
– NP NP – NP NP – – – – 38 >99 – 43 70.3 – 49 63.4 1 54 45.5 7 60 30.7 16.3 66 10.9 >99 NP NP
– 1 – 2 7 17 35 57 75 >99
PR
Girls
NP NP 37 43 49 55 60 66 72 NP
NP NP – 48 72 96 NP NP NP NP
T
NP NP >99 72.8 64.1 46.7 25 10 1 NP
NP NP – >99 6 4 NP NP NP NP
PR
Girls
Total # Trials (Lower is better)
18 23 28 33 39 44 49 54 59 64
39 44 50 55 60 65 – 76 – –
T
0.99 2.97 6 9 16.8 28.7 48.5 73.3 91.1 >99
31 46 57 76 90 97 – >99 – –
PR
Boys
– – 21 27 34 40 46 53 59 65
35 40 44 49 53 58 63 67 72 –
T
– – 2 5 9 20.7 42.4 72.8 90.2 >99
12 27 38 56 68 81 94 99 >99 –
PR
Girls
Delayed Naming
– – 3 – – 26 33 41 – 56
35 38 42 45 49 52 55 59 – 66
T
– – 0.99 – – 2.97 10.9 32.7 – >99
10 21 31 40 53 64 74 84 – >99
PR
Boys
– – – 5 – 22 30 39 – 56
30 34 37 41 45 48 52 56 59 63
T
– – – 1 – 2 7 28.6 – >99
5 10 16 28 36 47 59 75 77 >99
PR
Girls
Delayed Location
Note. NP = score not possible; T = T-score; PR = percentile rank. Lower scores are more desirable for Total # of Trials. Higher scores are more desirable for all other variables. n = 91 boys age 3; n = 81 girls age 3; n = 101 boys age 6; n = 92 girls age 6.
Age 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Age 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Raw Score
Initial Naming
Table 4 Standard Scores (T-scores) and Percentile Ranks for Ages 3 and 6 by Gender.
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST 741
742
I. S. BARON ET AL.
Table 5 Percentile Ranks and Standard T-scores for Total Number of Errors. 3-Year-Olds
6-Year-Olds
Boys
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
# Errors Raw Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35+
Girls
Boys
Girls
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
74 73 71 70 69 67 66 64 63 61 60 58 57 55 54 53 51 50 48 47 45 44 42 41 40 38 37 35 34 32 31 29 28 27 25 ≤24
– – >99 98 97 – 96 93 90 – 88 84 77 74 69 64 53 45 44 40 35 30 25 23 15 13 – 11 10 5 4 2 1 – – –
72 71 69 68 66 64 63 61 60 58 56 55 53 52 50 49 47 45 44 42 41 39 37 36 34 33 31 29 28 26 25 23 21 20 18 ≤17
– >99 99 – 98 94 89 88 85 80 77 69 63 59 47 44 38 36 33 30 21 19 15 7 5 – – 4 2 – – – – – – –
65 63 61 60 58 57 55 53 52 50 48 47 45 44 42 40 39 37 36 34 32 31 29 27 26 24 23 21 19 18 16 14 13 11 10 ≤8
– >99 95 90 83 78 67 61 53 47 41 32 29 23 19 14 11 10 8 6 – 5 – – 4 3 – – – – – 2 – – – 1
65 63 61 60 58 56 55 53 51 49 48 46 44 43 41 39 37 36 34 32 31 29 27 25 24 22 20 19 17 15 13 12 10 8 6 ≤5
>99 99 95 89 85 74 67 59 48 39 33 30 26 22 17 – 16 13 10 7 – 5 4 2 – – – – – 1 – – – – – –
Note. T = T-score; PR = percentile rank. n = 91 boys age 3; n = 81 girls age 3; n = 101 boys age 6; n = 92 girls age 6.
correlation coefficients) and dependent t-tests. Test-retest analyses were conducted both using the raw data and the standardized age- and gender-corrected T-scores. This allowed us to investigate absolute and relative changes across time. Three-year test-retest reliability was similar for raw and T-score comparisons and was statistically significant and moderate in size for number of errors (r = .401 and .385, p = .001 and .001, respectively) and the last trial (i.e., Trial 5 for 3-year-olds, Trial 8 for 6-year-olds; r = .355 and .370, p = .002 and .001, respectively). For all other indices, the test-retest reliability was low
BARON-HOPKINS BOARD TEST
743
Table 6 Percentile Ranks and Standard T-scores for Savings Scores. 3-Year-Olds Males
Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 06:01 11 November 2015
Savings Score 0.00 12.50 14.29 16.67 20.00 25.00 28.57 33.33 37.50 40.00 42.86 44.44 50.00 55.56 57.14 60.00 62.50 66.67 71.43 75.00 77.78 80.00 83.33 85.71 87.50 88.89 100.00 112.50 116.67 120.00 125.00 128.57 150.00 175.00 180.00 200.00
6-Year-Olds Females
Males
Females
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
34 – – 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 44 45 46 – 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 53 – 55 55 – 58 61 62 63 64 65 70 76 77 –
10 – – 14 16 22 24 26 29 31 33 34 42 – 45 46 51 54 56 59 62 63 – 66 70 – 86 88 90 92 95 97 98 99 >99 –
29 33 33 34 – 36 – 38 39 40 41 41 – 44 45 45 – 47 49 49 50 – 52 52 53 53 56 60 61 – – 64 – – 78 83
5 6 7 9 – 10 – 12 14 16 23 25 – 26 28 31 – 37 43 46 48 – 51 53 60 62 85 91 96 – – 98 – – 99 >99
– – – – – – 9 – – – – – – 26 – – – 33 – 38 40 – – – 46 – 54 62 – – – – 86 – – –
– – – – – – 1 – – – – – – 3 – – – 8 – 9 26 – – – 29 – 97 98 – – – – >99 – – –
T – – – – – – – 5.16 – – – – – – – – 26 29 – 35 37 – – 43 44 – 53 63 – – – 74 90 – – –
PR – – – – – – – 1.1 – – – – – – – – 2 4 – 5 19 – – 20 25 – 96 98 – – – 99 >99 – – –
Note. PR = percentile rank; T = T-score. n = 91 males age 3; n = 81 females age 3; n = 101 males age 6; n = 92 females age 6.
and not statistically significant (r < .277, p > α). Dependent t-tests indicated that participants statistically significantly decreased in raw scores the number of errors from age 3 to age 6 and in initial naming, Trial 1, Last Trial, delayed naming, and delayed location recall. However, no statistically significant differences were found in scores across time for T-score comparisons.
1.13 1.63 1.59 5.77 0.35 1.94 2.86 37.27 7.25 9.33 9.15 8.68 8.67 8.88 9.94 9.43
7.69 4.37 6.96 15.04 4.93 2.35 5.01 70.56
52.12 48.46 51.08 50.71 49.26 48.66 50.37 49.88
SD
48.80 48.59 48.50 47.34 47.78 46.92 48.26 49.20
8.80 5.41 8.66 10.46 6.18 5.87 8.04 93.38
M
Age 6
10.81 9.94 12.39 10.88 9.28 11.05 11.95 12.16
0.44 1.58 0.86 6.57 1.62 2.01 1.49 18.17
SD
0.083 −0.170 0.370 0.385 0.277 0.171 0.060 −0.138
0.107 −0.169 0.355 0.401 0.273 0.184 0.070 −0.148
r
Correlations
0.490 0.157 0.001* 0.001* 0.019 0.155 0.619 0.250
0.376 0.158 0.002* 0.001* 0.021 0.125 0.559 0.218
p
2.24 –0.07 Z = −0.80 2.58 Z = −1.54 1.13 1.18 0.35
8.04 3.57 Z = −5.30 −5.68 Z = −6.48 11.76 8.16 −4.39
t
.028 .942 .422 .012 .123 .263 .243 .730
