MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012697184 · doi:10.1080/09084280802644128

Interpretation of the RBANS in Inpatient Psychiatry: Clinical Normative Data and Prevalence of Low Scores for Patients with Schizophrenia

2009· article· en· W2012697184 on OpenAlexaff
Grant L. Iverson, Brian L. Brooks, Glenn Haley

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Neuropsychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Mental Health & Substance Use Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological StatusNormativePsychologyPercentile rankPsychiatrySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)Clinical psychologySchizophrenia spectrumNeuropsychologyPercentilePsychosisCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS; Randolph, 1998 Randolph , C. ( 1998 ). Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status manual . San Antonio , TX : The Psychological Corporation . [Google Scholar]) is a screening battery designed to measure attention and processing speed, expressive language, visual-spatial and constructional abilities, and immediate and delayed memory. Clinical normative data for a large sample of inpatients and outpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders is available (Wilk, Gold, Humber, Dickerson, Fenton, & Buchanan, 2004 Wilk , C. M. , Gold , J. M. , Humber , K. , Dickerson , F. , Fenton , W. S. , & Buchanan , R. W. ( 2004 ). Brief cognitive assessment in schizophrenia: Normative data for the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological status . Schizophrenia Research , 70 ( 2–3 ), 175 – 186 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the clinical normative data for the RBANS for use in inpatient psychiatry. Participants were 174 inpatients from a provincial psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder. Median performance on the RBANS was 1–2 standard deviations (SDs) below the mean. Patients with more than 12 years of education performed significantly better on every index score than patients with 12 or fewer years of education. Men performed better than women on the Visuospatial/Constructional Index (Cohen's d = .47). When examining all five Index scores simultaneously, it was common for inpatients to obtain three or more frankly impaired scores (i.e., less than the 2nd percentile). Overall, the performance of this inpatient sample was very similar to the clinical normative data presented by Wilk et al. (2004 Wilk , C. M. , Gold , J. M. , Humber , K. , Dickerson , F. , Fenton , W. S. , & Buchanan , R. W. ( 2004 ). Brief cognitive assessment in schizophrenia: Normative data for the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological status . Schizophrenia Research , 70 ( 2–3 ), 175 – 186 .[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Detailed normative tables by diagnosis, education, and gender are provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied NeuropsychologySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207