Performance of brain-injured versus non-brain-injured individuals on three versions of the category test

Abstract

To date, no research exists examining criterion-related validity of alternate, computerized forms of the Category Test. The intent of this study was to address criterion-related validity of three full forms of the Category Test. In that, the goal was to examine equivalency of each version in their ability to differentiate brain-injured from non-brain-injured individuals. Forty-nine (N = 49) healthy adults and 45 (N = 45) brain-injured adults were tested using three versions of the Category Test, the BDI, and the WAIS-R NI. ANOVA indicated no significant differences between versions of the Category Test or an interaction between Category Test version and group membership on the total error score. MANOVA performed between versions of the Category Test and Subtest error scores indicated significant differences between versions on Subtest 3 and Subtest 6. Group membership (brain-injured v. non-brain-injured) produced a significant main effect on all subtests of the Category Test except Subtest 2. Several exploratory analyses were performed examining the relationship between neuropsychological impairment, group membership based on Category Test error scores, and the WAIS-R NI. Clinical applications, such as the use of serial testing to index neurorehabilitation gains, were discussed.