Minimal Gender Differences on the CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Battery
Minimal Gender Differences on the CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Battery
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09084282.2012.721149
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Rennison, V. Lynn Ashton
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Iverson, Grant L.;Brooks, Brian L.;Rennison, V. Lynn Ashton
规范性测试分数通常会针对可能影响神经认知能力的人口变量（例如性别、年龄、教育和种族）进行校正。本研究的目的是确定中枢神经系统生命体征计算机化神经认知测试组是否存在性别差异。参与者是从大型规范数据库中选出的 100 名健康成年人，年龄在 18 岁至 68 岁之间（M 年龄 = 35.8 岁，SD = 13.6），受教育年限为 15.5 年（SD = 2.2）。男性 (n = 50) 和女性 (n = 50) 在年龄、教育程度、种族、计算机使用、职业和惯用手方面进行了单独且精确的匹配。这组七项测试产生 23 个测试分数、5 个领域分数（记忆力、精神运动速度、反应时间、复杂注意力和认知灵活性）以及总分。在右手手指敲击测试中，男性的得分明显高于女性（p = .006，Cohen's d = 0.57）。尽管在符号数字编码 (d = .39) 和言语记忆 (d = .37) 方面存在有利于女性的中小效应，但其他得分没有显着差异。单词列表识别记忆和处理速度的性别差异趋势与文献一致，但由于它们不显着且效应大小适中，临床医生可能不需要将其纳入测试解释中。
Normative test scores often are corrected for demographic variables that can have an impact on neurocognitive abilities (e.g., gender, age, education, and ethnicity). The purpose of this study is to determine whether there are gender differences on the CNS Vital Signs computerized neurocognitive test battery. Participants, selected from a large normative database, were 100 healthy adults aged 18 to 68 years old (M-age = 35.8 years, SD = 13.6) with 15.5 years of education (SD = 2.2). Men (n = 50) and women (n = 50) were individually and precisely matched on age, education, ethnicity, computer use, occupation, and handedness. This battery of seven tests yields 23 test scores, 5 domain scores (Memory, Psychomotor Speed, Reaction Time, Complex Attention, and Cognitive Flexibility), and a total score. Men had significantly better scores than did women on the Finger-Tapping Test for the right hand (p = .006, Cohen's d = 0.57). No other scores were significantly different, although there were small-medium effect sizes in favor of women on Symbol-Digit Coding (d = .39) and Verbal Memory (d = .37). The trends toward gender differences in word-list recognition memory and processing speed are consistent with the literature, but because they were nonsignificant and the effect sizes were modest, the clinician likely does not need to factor this into test interpretation.