Sensitivity of figural fluency on the five-point test to focal neurological dysfunction
Abstract
The Five-Point test, a measure of nonverbal figural fluency created by Regard, Strauss, and Knapp (1982), was administered to 258 patients (196 with neurologic disease and 62 with psychiatric disorders) to provide information on the sensitivity of the measure to frontal lobe dysfunction. Patients with frontal lobe dysfunction had a significantly higher percentage of perseverative errors than did nonfrontal neurologic and psychiatric patients on two versions of the Five-Point test. Furthermore, patients with right frontal lobe dysfunction were more often correctly classified as defective on the basis of percent perseveration than patients with cerebral dysfunction in other brain regions. These data provide evidence of the sensitivity of the Five-Point test to brain damage generally and to frontal lobe dysfunction specifically.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Patients with frontal lobe dysfunction have a significantly higher percentage of perseverative errors than do neurological patients without frontal involvement and psychiatric patients.
“Patients with frontal lobe dysfunction have a significantly higher percentage of perseverative errors than do neurological patients without frontal involvement and psychiatric patients (Lee et al., 1997).”
From Impairment in Occupational Functioning and Adult ADHD: The Predictive Utility of Executive Function (EF) Ratings Versus EF Tests (2010) · cites this paper as Lee et al., 1997
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2010) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acq014 · Cited by 468 · see citing works
Barkley, R. A., & Fischer, M. (2011) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.549877 · Cited by 413 · see citing works
Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2011) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-011-9217-x · Cited by 263 · see citing works
Ownsworth, T., Fleming, J., Strong, J., Radel, M., Chan, W., & Clare, L. (2007) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602010600615506 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lee, G. P., Strauss, E., Loring, D. W., McCloskey, L., Haworth, J. M., & Lehman, R. A. W.
- Venue
- The Clinical Neuropsychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-68
- ISSN
- 1385-4046
- 1744-4144
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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