Date of Submission

2024

Degree Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Psychology (PsyD)

Department

Psychology

Department Chair

Stephanie Felgoise, PhD

First Advisor

Donald Masey, PsyD

Second Advisor

Robert DiTomasso PhD

Third Advisor

Gabriel Stanziano, PsyD

Abstract

This research investigated the impact of race-based normative data, the removal of a subtest, and the reason for referral on neuropsychological assessments. Three hypotheses were tested using various statistical methods. The first hypothesis predicted a significant difference in the Average Impairment Rating (AIR) when comparing European American normative data to African American normative data. The second hypothesis posited that the removal of the 12th composite score (Av-1) would significantly alter the classification of brain injury using the AIR. The third hypothesis proposed that a significant difference would be observed in the AIR, General Deficit Scale (GDS), and Halstead Impairment Index (HII) between subjects with a forensic component of their referral question versus solely clinical cases. Findings revealed that race-based normative data significantly altered diagnostic clarification, indicating potential bias against African Americans. Removing a subtest did not significantly impact the AIR, suggesting its robustness. Lastly, no significant difference was observed in the AIR, GDS, and HII scores between forensic and clinical referral groups, implying consistent diagnostic interpretations across referral contexts. These findings have significant implications for clinical and forensic neuropsychological assessment practices.

Download

Share

COinS