Cited by 2,519Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchPsychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater Studies

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity

Randolph, Christopher, Tierney, Michael C., Mohr, Erich, Chase, Thomas N.·1998·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

Neuropsychological assessment of older individuals with dementing illnesses has suffered from a lack of appropriately designed test instruments. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) was developed for the dual purposes of identifying and characterizing abnormal cognitive decline in the older adult and as a neuropsychological screening battery for younger patients. The entire battery takes less than 30 minutes to administer, and yields scaled scores for five cognitive domains. The current study reports preliminary clinical validity results with the RBANS, comparing very mildly demented patients with a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (n = 20) to patients with Huntington's disease (n = 20) and normal controls (n = 40). Although the patient groups had essentially identical total scores on the RBANS, they exhibited opposite profiles, differing significantly on four of the five subsections. The AD patients performed most poorly on Language, and Delayed Memory subsections, while the HD patients obtained their lowest scaled scores on the Attention and the Visuospatial/Constructional subsections. These results are consistent with the neuropsychological profiles of these dementing disorders derived from lengthier standardized tests and experimental investigations. In addition, even those patients who performed above the suggested cut-off points on the MMSE and the Dementia Rating Scale scored significantly below their controls on the RBANS. These data suggest that the RBANS is effective at both detecting and characterizing dementia of different etiologies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1076/jcen.20.3.310.823

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Randolph, C., Tierney, M. C., Mohr, E., & Chase, T. N.
Affiliations
Loyola University Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
1998-06
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
310-319
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W1973798645
Cited by
2,519
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 155 · 2025: 182 · 2024: 209 · 2023: 192 · 2022: 176 · 2021: 202 · 2020: 225 · 2019: 173 · 2018: 147 · 2017: 137 · 2016: 109 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 99 · 2013: 97 · 2012: 70
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
Keywords
RBANS, clinical validity, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, cognitive decline, neuropsychological screening, cognitive domain, language impairment, memory impairment, attention, visuospatial impairment, Mini-Mental State Examination, Mattis Dementia Rating Scale, older adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Aging, Alzheimer Disease, Cognition Disorders, Female, Humans, Huntington Disease, Language, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review