ABSTRACT
A identificação de Sinais de Risco e o diagnóstico de TEA demandam utilização de instrumentos com diversas fontes de evidências de validade. O objetivo deste estudo foi reunir evidências de validade do PROTEA-R-NV, incluindo: a) as baseadas em variáveis de critério e b) validade convergente com M-CHAT. Foi empregado um delineamento misto (grupos contrastantes e correlacional). Nas análises de comparação, participaram 15 crianças com TEA (idade média 44,8(16,64) meses) e 15 crianças sem TEA (idade média 45,13(17,62)), enquanto, nas análises correlacionais, participaram 44 crianças com e sem TEA (idade média 45,10(15,90)). Na maioria dos itens do PROTEA-R-NV e no escore total dos itens críticos, foram observadas diferenças estatisticamente significativas (grupo TEA apresentou escores mais altos, indicando maior prejuízo). Observou-se correlação forte positiva entre o escore de risco do M-CHAT e o escore dos itens críticos do PROTEA-R-NV. Assim, considera-se que o PROTEA-R-NV demonstrou adequadas evidências de validade de critério e convergente. (AU)
Identification of signs of ASD and diagnosis require the use of tests with diverse sources of validity evidence. The aim of this study was to gather validity evidence for the PROTEA-R-NV based on: a) criteria variables and b) convergent validity with the M-CHAT. A mixed method design was performed (comparative and correlational groups). In the comparative analysis, 15 children diagnosed with ASD (mean age 44.8 (SD=16.64) months) and 15 children without this diagnosis (mean age 45.13 (SD=17.62) months) participated. Participants in the correlational analysis were 44 children with and without ASD (mean age 45.10(SD=15.90) months). The majority of PROTEA-R-NV items and the total score of the critical items showed significant differences between groups, with the ASD group presenting higher scores, indicating more impairment. The M-CHAT total score showed strong and positive correlation with the PROTEA-R-NV critical items score. Accordingly, the PROTEA-R-NV presented adequate evidence of validity based on criteria and convergent validity. (AU)
La identificación de señales de alerta y el diagnóstico de TEA requieren el uso de instrumentos con diferentes fuentes de evidencias de validez. El objetivo de este estudio fue reunir evidencias de la validez del PROTEA-R-NV, incluyendo: a) aquellas basadas en variables de criterio, y b) validez convergente con M-CHAT. Se utilizó un diseño mixto (grupos contrastantes y correlacionales). En los análisis comparativos, participaron 15 niños con TEA (edad media 44.8(16.64) meses) y 15 niños sin TEA (edad media 45.13(17.62)). En los análisis correlacionales, participaron 44 niños con y sin TEA (edad media 45,10(15,90)). En la mayoría de los ítems de PROTEA-R-NV y en el puntaje de los ítems críticos, se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (grupo TEA tuvo puntajes más altos, lo que indica un mayor daño). Hubo una fuerte correlación positiva entre la puntuación de riesgo de M-CHAT y la puntuación de los elementos críticos de PROTEA-R-NV. Por lo tanto, se considera que PROTEA-R-NV demostró evidencia adecuada de criterio y validez convergente. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Child, Preschool , Autism Spectrum Disorder/psychology , Reproducibility of Results , Autism Spectrum Disorder/diagnosisABSTRACT
Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate executive functioning (EF) and impulsiveness in three groups of people aged 30 to 79 years: post-frontal stroke (n= 13) and post-extra-frontal chronic stroke of the right hemisphere (n= 31) and control (n= 38). The years of education varied between the groups was as follows, frontal lesion group:M= 12 (SD= 6.11); extra-frontal lesion group: M = 9.06 (SD = 4.94); and control: M= 9.61 (SD= 4.24) years. The following instruments were used: Behavioural Assessment Dysexecutive Syndrome, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WSCT), Barratt Impulsivity Scale, Impulsivity Evaluation Scale, Delay Descounting Task and Go/No-Go Task. We found differences in EF between the extra-frontal lesion group and the control group with respect to cognitive flexibility (p= .018); number of WCST trials (p= .018); WCST perseverative errors (p= .014) and omission by impulsivity errors on the go/no-go task for 250 ms (p= .008) and 1750 ms trials (p= .006). The frontal lesion group made more errors of omission than the control group in the 1750 ms go/no-go trials (p= .006). These results suggest that extra-frontal lesions impair EF by influencing attentional impulsivity.(AU)