Some researchers, however, question the usefulness of these tests for neuropsychological assessment. Although much of the behaviour that intelligence tests measure is directly referable to certain cognitive functions, these functions most often overlap and cannot be investigated separatly. Much research has focused, for example, on a comparison between the different WIS scores (verbal, performance and full) in an attempt to isolate impairment in one or the other major functional system to aid diagnosis. This attempt has not been very successful for several reasons. Tests in each scale differ considerably in their sensitivity to both, general effects such as mental slowing , and to specific effects such as verbal, visuo-spatial or memory impairments. Sometimes impairments in only one or two of the tests in a scale could be informative but they are easily obscured by the averaging processes with other tests in the scale (Botez, Ethier, Leveille, & Botez-Marquard, 1977). On the other hand, one has to be careful with interpreting single test results on their own because impaired performance in only one test could also be due to chance. In addition, it was found that overall IQ scores on standard tests cannot directly predict the size of brain lesions (Maher, 1963). Discrete brain lesions can produce deficits over a broad range of cognitive functions and these functions can be affected with different severity. Degenerative diseases and aging lead to differential deterioration of diverse cognitive functions and the affected functions decline at different rates. Although IQ tests are to some extent able to measure general cognitive ability when the brain is intact, the fact that they measure a mixture of performances which cannot easily be disentangled limits their use for neuropsychological assessment. (Lezak, 1995)
To be able to draw valuable inferences regarding the current IQ score of a patient it is necessary to compare it to some measure that indicates what this patient’s performance was like before the brain damage. A premorbid IQ score has to be calculated. The current / premorbid difference in IQ can be an informative tool for clinicians in determining whether the individual has sustained loss of functioning as a result of the accident or illness. Based on the finding that language is relatively robust and remains constant when other cognitive abilities (e.g. memory, reasoning, arithmetic skills) are declining, vocabulary and reading tests were chosen as an index for premorbid functioning. Yates (1956, as cited Zhu & Weiss, 2005) was the first person to argue that premorbid functioning could be estimated with the WAS Vocabulary score since it was found to be relatively independent from age-related decline in performance. Later research (Rusell, 1972), however, showed that individuals with brain damage performed much more poorly on vocabulary than the general population. Therefore, reading tests mainly replaced vocabulary tests as an index for premorbid functioning. Nelson and O’Connell (1978 in F) introduced the National Adult Reading Test (later New Adult Reading Test or NART), which contains a list of words, all of which are irregularly pronounced (e.g. ache, aisle, chord, etc.). They developed a regression-based formula for estimating WAIS- IQ scores from the scores on NART and concluded that predictions based on NART were fairly accurate. However, recently concerns have been raised about its robustness and the possible influence of scorer biases. Further, the method has been questioned as it underestimates the premorbid ability of dementia patients (Stebbins, Wilson & Gilley, 1990). An alternative method to determine premobid functioning uses the relationship between Wechsler IQ scores and demographic variables such as age, education, sex, race, and occupation (Heaton, Ryan, Grant, & Mathews, 1996). The correlation between current IQ scores and demographic variables is then used to develop prediction equations to determine premorbid IQ scores. The most recent approach is a new word-reading test, the Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR), which uses words that are phonetically difficult to pronounce and would require previous learning. The WTAR was found to correlate highly with other reading tests and IQ scores obtained with WAIS. Moreover, it has been conormed directly with the Wechsler scales, which reduces variablity due to other factors when comparing current and premorbid IQ scores (Zhu & Weiss, 2005).
So far only theoretical issues concerning neuropsychological assessment and interpretation were covered. When assessing brain damaged patients intellectually, there are, however, a number of practical issues that have to be taken into consideration. First, there are general factors that might affect performance of patients as well as of healthy people. These include culture, socio-economic status (SES), temperament, age, education, genetics or individual interests (lec notes). Age has a particularly pronounced effect on IQ scores. Therefore, scores should always be adjusted for age (as for example in WAIS-III). Secondly, there are factors that affect performance particularly in brain damaged patients. Brain damage often leads to personality and emotional change, most commonly to disinhibition, anxiety, hypersensitivity, emotional dullness or altered social awareness (Parikh & Robinson, 1987, as cited in Lezak, 1995). Further, obsessive-compulsive traits often evolve; patients can be more irritable, restless, have a lower frustration tolerance or be simply apathic (Heilman, Bowers & Valenstein, 1993).
Mental activity variables, which influence the efficiency of mental processes such as attention and concentration, are among the most common mental problems of brain damaged patients (Lezak, 1989 as cited in Lezak, 1995). Attentional deficits can have an effect on performance on almost every cognitive function tested. Many patients have a reduced auditory attention span, which results in that they hear only part of what was said, particularly when the task is complex. Other patients have difficulty keeping track of their ongoing mental activities, which often shows in repetitions on list learning tasks. Some patients have problems with executive functions such as switching between different tasks that are required in the test procedure. A further problem related to attentional deficits is increased distractibility. That is, some patients are easily distracted by their surrounding and have problems focusing on the task, which can subsequently interfere with cognitive performance and learning (Aks & Coren, 1990). In such cases the examiner should attempt to provide a test environment that is as sterile as possible (e.g. clocks should be quiet and out of sight, ideally room should be soundproof). If, however, the patient got distracted by for example a loud noise during a timed task it might be preferable to repeat the test on another day. In addition, the examiner should document attentional lapses when they occur since this could be further explored to obtain information about the patients abilities/inabilities.
A typical observation when testing brain damaged patients is that they fatigue easily, especially when they are still in the acute phase of the trauma. Examiners must be alert to detect fatigue because patients might not report it or might not be aware of it. That is examiners should look out for slurring in speech or restlessness. It is therefore crucial that patients are tested at an optimal time of the day (preferably the morning). Sometimes the patients fatigue might require the examiner to stop testing. Most tests can be continued on subsequent days. In addition, patients with cerebral impairments can vary noticeably in their performance from day to day or even from hour to hour. The examiner should attempt to test these patients on their “good days”. That is, when they feel confident and alert for the examination (Smith, 1993).
Fatigue and attentional deficits are often related with frustration and depression. When patients notice their frequent errors they might get frustrated, which in turn lowers their motivation and discourages them. This can carry over even into tests on which the patient would be normally good at. The examiner should encourage the patient whenever possible and should deliberately ensure that the patient has some success, even if the impairment is extensive. These factors put high demands on the clinician who is administering the tests because they have to find a balance between optimal and standard conditions. Creating optimal conditions is aimed at obtaining the best test performance the patient is capable of producing. However, these should not be too far away from standard conditions, which are necessary for many tests to allow a meaningful interpretation of individual differences.
Most often patients taking neuropsychological tests are on drug medication for their disorder. The effect of medication on cognitive functioning is multifaceted. For example, the anticholinergic action of some drugs used in Parkinson’s Disease and depression might interfere with memory functions (Vollhardt et al., 1992 as cited in Lezak, 1995). Brain damage can also interfere with drug effects, making them less predictable than for intact people (Eames et al., 1992 as cited in Lezak, 1995). Examiners should be aware that some patients take time to adjust to a new drug, which can alter their mental efficiency.
As mentioned above, intellectual assessment of patients most often involves a comparison between the current and the premorbid IQ score. Of all the previously mentioned factors that can affect test results, the examiner should be most cautious with those that affect the two IQ scores (current and premorbid) differently. That is, factors such as culture or SES will most likely affect tests scores to an equal extent, while attentional and fatigue problems will probably be more pronounced in the more demanding tests of current IQ. Since the current versus premorbid IQ difference is taken as a measure of the extent of functional impairment due to brain damage, its correct interpretation has wide implications for rehabilitation and therapy.
When using IQ tests to determine the extent to which general cognitive functioning is compromised after brain damage (e.g. due to stroke or traumatic brain injury) it is also important to consider impairments in other domains (e.g. sensory deficits). It is a fact that brain damage very rarely affects only single structures; in the majority of cases several functions are impaired simultaneously. Poor performance in IQ tests can therefore be due to specific impairments such as hearing and visual deficits, neglects or aphasia. Patients with these deficits might have the ability to perform well in IQ tests but are unable to do the tasks because of another concurrent impairment. It is therefore important not to evaluate intelligence performance on its own but in conjunction with other tests to rule out possible underlying deficits.
A recent approach to improve intellectual assessment, especially in problem patients, (e.g. patients with memory, attention, comprehension or executive function deficits, aphasics) is the combination of standard test batteries with neuroimaging methods such as event-related potentials (ERPs). ERPs can measure sensory, perceptual and cognitive processing that reflects speech processing, reading, attention, memory, concept formation, and expectancy. The main advantage is that ERPs can measure these processes independent of overt behaviour and verbal activity. Standard neuropsychological assessment tasks can be adapted for computer presentation and the electro-encephalogram (EEG) can be recorded simultaneously. The patient’s brain responses hence substitute for behavioural or verbal responses enabling accurate neuropsychological assessment or treatment monitoring. A study by O’Connolly, Major, Allen , & D'Arcy in 1999 investigated performance on WISC-III with ERPs in healthy adults and claims to provide evidence for the efficacy of this new method for neuropsychological assessment. Du Rouseau (2006) correlated IQ scores from the Wechsler scale with EEG data and found that neural efficiency, increased brain complexity and frontal lobe syncronisation as measured with EEG was positively correlated with IQ scores. High versus low IQ scores were predicted from EEG data with 92.8 % accuracy.
Conclusion
Intelligence is regarded as a capacity of mind that includes many related mental abilities, such as the capacity to reason, to aquire knowledge and apply it, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly and to comprehend ideas and language. There is an ongoing debate among researchers about the extent to which intelligence can be measured using IQ tests. The numerous limitations of IQ tests in healthy people seem to be multiplied when looking at neurologically impaired patients. There are a range of theoretical issues that limit the use of IQ tests for neuropsychological assessment. For example, tests developed to measure IQ measure a variety of cognitive functions. Moreover, IQ scores cannot predict lesion size or site. This means IQ test scores provide only very general information about a patient’s abilities. Further, results about current abilities should always be interpreted in the context of a standard measure, which provides information about patients’ premorbid aptitudes. Despite the fact that no specific conclusions can be drawn from patients’ IQ test results, clinicians sometimes find it useful to compare premorbid and current scores to determine the extent of functional loss after brain damage. In order for these results to be meaningful, however, a number of practical issues when conducting the tests have to be considered. For example, examiners should attempt to create optimal test conditions that take patients’ limitations due to their impairment into account. In many cases IQ tests should be combined with other tests that determine possible perceptual or language impairments. New techniques such as the combination of traditional tests with simultaneous EEG recording could assist in obtaining more accurate results of patients’ actual cognitive abilities. However, due to the numerous limitations of intelligence assessment, the importance of results should not be overestimated. Rather, results should be regarded as contributing only a small piece of information to the whole picture of a patient’s history.
References
Aks, D.J., & Coren, S. (1990). Is susceptibility to distraction related to mental ability? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 388-390.
Botez, M.I., Ethier, R., Leveille, J. & Botez-Marquard, T. (1977). A syndrome of early
recognition of occult hydrocephalus and cerebral atrophy. Quarterly Journal of
Medicine, 46, 365-380.
Carraher, T.N., Carraher, D.W., & Schliemann, A.D. (1985). Mathematics in the streets and in
schools. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 25-31.
Du Rouseau D. (2006). Use of Cognitive Assessment to Help Customize Treatment and
Improve Individual Outcome. Retrieved 05.03.2007 from .
Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J.J. (2004). An experimental analysis of dynamic hypotheses about
cognitive abilities and achievement from childhood to early adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 935–952.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Retrieved
06.03.2007 from
(1997). Intelligence and social policy. Intelligence, 24.
Heaton, R.K., Ryan, L., Grant, I., & Mathews, G.C. (1996). Demographic influences on
neuropsychological test performance. In Grant, I., & Adams, K.M. (eds),
Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Heilman, K.M., Bowers, D., & Valenstein, E. (1993). Emotional disorders associated with
neurological diseases. In Heilman, K.M. & Valenstein, E. (eds), Clinical
Neuropsychology (3rd edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kamphaus, J.D., Winsor, A.P., Rowe, E.W., & Kim, S.K. (2005). A history of intelligence
test interpretation. In Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (eds.), Contemporary
Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. (2nd edition). London: The
Guilford Press.
Kaufman, J.C., Kaufman, A.S., Kaufman-Singer, J., & Kaufman, N.L. (2005). The Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition and the Kaufman Adolescent and
Adult Intelligence Test. In Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (eds.), Contemporary
Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. (2nd edition). London: The
Guilford Press.
Lezak, M.D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Maher, B.A. (1963). Intelligence and brain damage. In Ellis, N.R. (eds), Handbook of mental
deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nelson, H.E., & O’Connell, A. (1978). Dementia: The estimation of premorbid intelligence
levels using the New Adult Reading Test. Cortex, 14, 234-244.
O’Connolly, J.F., Major, A., Allen, S., & D'Arcy, R.C. (1999). Performance on WISC-III and
WAIS-R NI Vocabulary Subtests Assessed with Event-Related Brain Potentials: An
Innovative Method of Assessment. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 21, 444-464.
Roid, G.H., & Pomplun, M. (2005). Interpreting the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth
edition. In Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (eds.), Contemporary Intellectual
Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. (2nd edition). London: The Guilford Press.
Rusell, E. (1972). WAIS factor analysis with brain damaged subjects using criterion
measures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 133-139.
Stebbins, G.T., Wilson, R.S., & Gilley, D.W. (1990). Effects of language disturbances on
premorbid estimates of IQ in mild dementia. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4, 18-24.
Sternberg, R. (2005). The Triarchic Theory of Successful Intelligence. In Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and
Issues. (2nd edition). London: The Guilford Press.
Tulsky, D.S., Saklofske, D.H., Chelune, G.J., Heaton, R.K., Ivnik, R.J., & Bornstein, R.
(2003). Clinical interpretation of the WAIS-III and WMS-III. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Wechsler, D. (1939). The measurement of adult intelligence . Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Zhu, J., & Weiss, L. (2005). The Wechsler Scales. In Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (eds.),
Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues. (2nd edition).
London: The Guilford Press.