SCWTSoft Coated Wheaten Terrier
SCWTSmart Clothes & Wearable Technologies
Copyright 1988-2018, All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
In order to define impairment the criterion of two standard deviations below mean was used and three cognitive measures were assumed: memory (i.e., abnormal score on CVLT), processing speed (i.e., abnormal score on color and/or word conditions of the SCWT), and executive functioning (i.e., abnormal score on the interference condition of the SCWT, on phonemic and/or semantic conditions of the VFT).
n Mean (S.D.) MSNQ-P 103 16.65 (12.02) MSNQ-P retest 58 14.26 (10.36) MSNQ-I 60 13.92 (11.29) CFQ 51 12.30 (6.72) BDI 51 10.78 (6.73) GVLTdel 51 11.96 (2.57) EPST 51 45.44 (11.69) SCWT 51 Word 88.00 (15.44) Color 65.92 (13.15) Color-Word 40.56 (10.17) VFT 51 Semantic 53.24 (9.07) Phonemic 28.57 (8.97) DS 51 Total 12.69 (3.08) Forwards 6.90 (1.66) Backwards 5.78 (1.99) EDSS=Expanded Disability Status Scale, MSNQ-P=MSNQ patient form, MSNQ-I=MSNQ informant form, CFQ=Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, BDI=Beck Depression Inventory, GVLTdel=Greek Verbal Learning Test delayed recall trial, SCWT=Stroop Color-Word Test, EPST=Experimental Processing Speed Test, VFT=Verbal Fluency Test, and DS=Digit Span.
Patients Controls P Variable (n = 51) (n = 20) value Age (median, [IQR]; y) 51(38-62) 50 (37-59) 0.203 Male, n (%) 21 (41.1) 8 (40) 0.928 Weight (median, [IQR]; kg) 60 (50-65) 57 (51-64) 0.196 Education (median, [IQR]; y) 15 (12-15) 15 (12-15) 0.557 LDC (median, [IQR]; points) 38 (28-56) 34 (27-58) 0.276 SCWT (median, [IQR]; points) 36 (29-48) 38 (29-42) 0.194 CST (median, [IQR]; points) 69 (47-100) 69 (51-100) 0.333 VVL (median, [IQR]; points) 10 (9-12) 11 (10-12) 0.387 Data are presented as mean (IQR) or count (%).
To reduce the influence of confounding factors such as bradykinesia and tremor on cognitive scores (e.g., on the TMT, SMT, and SCWT), we controlled for age, education, H-Y stage, and UPDRS part III score before conducting the statistical analyses.
The SCWT test measures the ability to inhibit automatic responses, selecting relevant stimuli and ignore irrelevant stimuli (Lima et al., 2011; Lopez-Villalobos et al., 2010).
(2009) point that many studies have failed to show selective attention deficits compared to non-ADHD controls on SCWT test, except for studies with large samples, when group differences emerge, but they tend to be small effect sizes.
Following the screening measures, the WCST, SCWT, and the Purdue Pegboard were administered.
Compared to their controls, the ADHD group also performed significantly worse on the color, color/word, and interference scores of the SCWT. It is the interference score that is important to the exploration of the study.
Although the groups did not differ from each other in WCST scores, children with RE displayed lower performance in SCWT. The RE group had higher externalizing and total scores in CBCL.
Everatt, Warner, Miles and Thomson (1997) investigated the effect of interference on selective attention using the stroop color word test (SCWT), also considered a measure of inhibitory control.
Table 2 shows that the groups differed significantly in the following scores: cancellation test (GF)--omission errors and time; trail making test-A/B--time; SCWT/C errors and time; SCWT/CW--errors and time; SCWT (facilitation-errors); SCWT (interference-errors).