RCFT 관련 자료

[최현수]

https://prezi.com/gjm7_voo8rtx/rey-complex-figure-test-and-recognition-trial/

Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial의 스크립트

Rey Complex Figure Test and Recognition Trial Administration Normative Data ~ 1944
~ Procedural methods were normed as percentiles, or likelihood of occurrence
~ Adult's average score on the copy production to be 32
~ Adult's average score on the recall production to be 22
~ Osterreith's normative data seems to be used in terms of assessing good or poor performances however specific comparisons are not commonly found within the current literature
Scoring and Interpretation ~18 lines/units of the drawing

~ Assigned point values of 0 to 2 to each unit depending on the degree to which the units are correctly drawn and placed

~ Subjective

~ RCFT involves various skills: fine motor movements, attention, memory, organization and visual perception
* Therefore, good performance may be misinterpreted and mask problems and poor performance does not necessarily signify visuospatial difficulties
*Reduces the test’s specificity

~ Nevertheless, low scores might signify right, left or bilateral hemisphere damage ~ High construct validity

~ Identifies visuospatial, memory, speed of processing and visuoconstructional problems in healthy and unhealthy clients

~ Sensitive to visual-spatial impairments in healthy and clinical populations such as Alzheimer’s disease patients (Immediate Recall and Delayed Recall)

~ Test’s complexity makes it sensitive to memory problems

~ Encoding, storage and recovery of memory could be eval‎uated during the test trials

~ Sensitive to diverse impairments Extended Complex Figure Test (ECFT) Limitations 1. The reliance on constructional ability can confound interpretations about memory; RCFT involves various skills such as fine motor movements, attention, organization and visual perception, as well as memory

2. Results may also be confused if reporter does not take perceptual problems into account

3. It is difficult to know the reason why recall is defective because the test does not discriminate between encoding and retrieval‎

4. Different test versions have various administration criteria

5. RCFT scoring is subjective and interpretation is complex due to the numerous skills the RCFT involves

6. This version excludes people with physical disabilities

7. Results cannot be directly compared to the original RCFT ~ Copy, Immediate Recall, Delayed Recall (20-45 minutes later)

~ Copy: Subject is instructed to copy the figure
~ Figure is set out so that its length runs along the subject's horizontal plane.
~ The examiner hands her/him different colored pencil and notes the order of colors each time the subject completes a section of the drawing
~ Time to completion is recorded
~ Test figure and the subject's drawings are removed

~ Immediate Recall: same process, without the use of the copy figure.

~ Delayed Recall
~ Researchers have reported waiting anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes before instructing the subject to recall and re-draw the figure without using the copy figure to look at
~ Specific directions on when and how to determine the duration of the delay has been found
~ Research shows most delays are under one hour.

~ Various RCFT versions Materials *120-page Professional Manual
~ Information on the development of the RCFT materials
~ Administration and scoring procedures with scoring examples
~ Demographically corrected normative data
~ Guidelines for interpretation with case illustrations
~ Reliability and validity data
*Manual Supplement with data for children and adolescents
* Laminated RCFT Stimulus Card
~8.5" x 11"; computer-rendered replica of the original Rey complex figure
* 16-page RCFT Test Booklet
~ Pages for the three freehand drawing trials (Copy, Immediate Recall, and Delayed Recall) and the Recognition trial (perforated for easy detachment)

Required for administration: A stopwatch History and Use ~ Swiss psychologist André Rey in 1941
~ Paul-Alexandre Osterrieth in 1944
* Standardized the administration procedure
* Obtained normative data from 230 normal children and 60 adults
* Provided interpretative guidance based on visuospatial abilities, memory, attention, planning, and working memory (executive functions).


~ Frequently used:
* To expose secondary effects of brain injury in neurological patients
* To test for the presence of dementia
* To study the degree of cognitive development in children

Compared to Other Similar Tests Memory and Visual Constructional Tests
*Token Test
*BVRT total correct
*RAVLT Trial 5

Abilities and Functions
*Hooper Visual Organization Test (HVOT)
*Line Orientation
*Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices

Its spatial construction skill effectiveness is superior over:
* Block Design of the WAIS-III
* Copying in the Bender-Gestalt test
* Visual integration in the HVOT Reliability ~ Reported to have high interrater reliability (Meyers & Meyers, 1995)

~ Test-retest reliability is low since ceiling effects increase Copy and Recognition scores

~ When tested after one month scores increased by 10%

~ Internal consistency reliability is not addressed in the RCFT manual. Developed to overcomes the limitations of the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test

Adds Recognition and Matching Trials to the design copying task
~ Distinguish perceptual operations from constructional skills
~ Distinguish encoding processes from retrieval‎ processes This gives the ECFT

Greater diagnostic sensitivity

Strengths
* Eval‎uating the effects of head injury, stroke, seizure, various medical conditions, and exposure to neurotoxins
* Differentiating depression from dementia
* Distinguishing dementia-related memory deficits from normal, age-related memory lapses
* Identifying aspects of memory functioning relevant to rehabilitation Similare to RCFT, subjects are instructed to copy a complex geometric figure onto a blank sheet of paper

The immediate and delayed recall of the figure is assessed

ECFT adds a forced-choice recognition task (preserving orientation) and a stimulus matching task using elements from the original figure

Testing time: 15 to 20 minutes
Delay interval: 30 minutes

11 scores: Design Copy Total Score, Recognition Total Score, Immediate Recall, Recognition Global, Delayed Recall, Recognition Detail, Matching Total Score, Recognition Left Detail, Matching Left Detail, Recognition Right Detail, Matching Right Detail

Age-stratified norms are provided as scaled scores for adults- based on a sample of 239 men and women (ages 19 to 85)

Means with standard deviations for children- based on a sample of 76 children (ages 6 to 18)

A short version of the ECFT
* Requires no motor skills
* 10 to 15 minutes
* Provides only the 8 Recognition and Matching scores
* Can be used with patients who have limited motor ability or easily tire ECFT Method, Scoring, and Norms References Validity Delay Times Delay time between copy and recall productions varies among examiners.

Examiners who have reported using delay times have used 20-minute, 30-minute, 40-minute, and 45-minute delay times and have reported showing little difference in test results using different delay times as long as the delay is within one hour, according to Lezak (1983)

Lezak's 1983 literature review reports the following delay times:
Klicpera (1983): Immediate and 20 minute
Bennett-Levy (1984): 40 minutes
Waber and Holmes (1986): Immediate and 20-minutes
Waber and Bernstein (1989): 20-minutes
Loring et al. (1988): 30-minutes
Bigler et al. (1989): 3-minutes Scoring and Interpretation Continued Alternative scoring systems; Waber and Holmes (1985, 1986), Bennett-Levy (1984)
~ Smallest line sediments possible
accuracy
intersections
alignments
direction of execution
~ For this method, interrater reliability was calculated at 95%.
~ Eval‎uation of goodness of organization accuracy based on a 5-point scale ranging from poor (1) to excellent (5)
~ Style rating included four categories
1. Part-oriented
2. Exterior configuration/anterior part-oriented
3. Exterior part-oriented/interior configurational
4. Configurational
Bennett-Levy (1984)
~ Osterreith's 18-point scale for detail eval‎uation - strict application for copy production; lax application on recall production
~ Organizational structure: eval‎uated in terms of symmetry and good continuation Bennett-Levy, J. (1984). Determinants of performance on the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure Test: An analysis and a new technique for single case assessment. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 109-119.
Bigler, E. D. (1956). Frontal lobe damage and neuropsychological assessment. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 3, 279 - 297.
Bigler, E. D., Rose, L., Schultz, F., Hall, S., and Harris, J. (1989). Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning and Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure design Performance in Alzheimer's Disease and closed head injury Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45 (2), 277-280.
Crosson, John R. & Wiens, Arthur N. (1 956). Residual Neuropsychological deficits following head-injury on the Wechsler Memory ScaIe - Revised. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 2 (4), 393-399.
Dumont, R. & Willis, J., Rey Oseterreith Complex Figure, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Retreived April 24, 2013, from http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/rocf.htm.
Fastenau, P.S. (1996). Development and preliminary standardization of the “Extended Complex Figure Test” (ECFT). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,18, 63-76.
Fastenau, P.S., denburg, N.L., Hufford, B.J. (1999). Adult norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and for supplemental recognition and matching trials from the Extended Complex Figure Test. Clinical Neuropsychology, 13(1), 30-47
Jamus, R., Mader, J.M. (2005). The Rey Complex Figure and its importance a method of neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Epilepsy and Clinical Neurophysiology, 11 (4).Klicpera, C. (I 983).
Poor planning as a characteristic of problem-solving behavior in dyslexic children. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 49 (1/2), 73-82.
Levine, D. N., Warach, J. D., Benowitz, L., and Calvanio, R.(1986). Left spatial neglect: Effects of lesion size and premorbid brain atrophy on severity and recovery following right cerebral interaction. Neurology, 36,362-366.
Lezak, M. D. (1963). Neuropsychological Assessment 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lezak, M.D., Howieson, D.B., & Loring, D.W. (2004). Neuropsychological Assessment (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Loring, D. W., Lee, G. P., & Meador, K. J. (1988). Revising the Rey-Osterreith: Rating right hemisphere recall. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 3, 239-247.
Meyers,J. & Meyers, K. (1995). The Meyers Sciring System for the Rey Complex Figure and the Recognition Trial: Professional Manual. Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment Resources.
The Rey Complex Figure Test, The New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER). Retrieved April 24, 2013, from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/pts/rey-complex-figure-test-and-recognition-trial-rcft.
Waber, D. P. & Bernstein, J H. (1989). Remembering the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. A dual-code cognitive neuropsychological model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 5 (1), 1- 15.
Waber, D. P. & Holmes, J M. (1986). Assessing children's memory productions of Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, (5), 563-580.
Waber, D. P. & Holmes, J M. (1986). (1985). Assessing children's productions of the Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 3, 264-280.