Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oehler-Stinnett, J.
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, H. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision: Discrimination between Learning-Disabled and Slow-Learner Children

Judy Oehler-Stinnett

University of Southern Mississippi

Terry A. Stinnett

University of Southern Mississippi

Andrea L. Wesley

University of Southern Mississippi

Howard N. Anderson

University of Southern Mississippi

The ability of the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery-Children's Revision (LNNB-CR) to discriminate learning disabled (N = 27) and slow-learner (N = 14) students and to discriminate these groups when variance associated with IQ was controlled was examined. Also, the regression formula for diagnosis of brain damage, calculated from standardization data, was employed to determine the percentage of each group classified as brain damaged. Results indicated that the LNNB-CR discriminated between groups with 93% correct classification; three subscales contributed significantly to the discrimination: Intelligence, Motor, and Tactile. Univariate analyses of variance indicated significant differences between groups on the subscales of Motor, Writing, Arithmetic, and Intelligence. No significant differences were evidenced between groups with FSIQ covaried. Using the regression formula established with the standardization data, 100% of the slow-learner group and 78% of the learning-disabled group were labeled as brain damaged. The results suggest that the LNNB-CR does not provide additional information beyond that obtained through traditional psychoeducational assessment. The LNNB-CR is likely to overclassify mildly handicapped children as brain damaged.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Vol. 6, No. 1, 24-34 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/073428298800600103
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?