References in periodicals archive ?
For the WMST the proportion of correct responses had a marginally lower loading than proportion of conceptual level responses, but it was decided to retain the former measure, which is simpler and differed significantly between groups, as the representative score for this task.
The measures were Skysearch and Mapsearch time/hit, Skysearch total time, distance per hit from the single and dual target VISEARCH, false alarms and time per target from VIGILAN, proportion of correct responses from WMST, WALK correct switches and Same--Opposite difference ratio.
This showed that three measures, dual VISEARCH distance/hit, proportion of correct WMST responses and Same--Opposite difference ratio, together provided the best discrimination between the groups and that adding other measures did not improve the discrimination (Lambda = .79, [[chi].sup.2](3) = 16.02, p [less than] .001).
The two groups formed on the basis of ratings of attention and hyperactivity differed significantly in the efficiency of their visual search (single and dual target), and in their performance on the WMST and WALK tasks, after differences in general ability had been removed.
The lower proportion of correct responses, and also conceptual level responses, in the WMST task implies a weakness in locating the significant feature in the display by isolating separate features and/or using the feedback provided; perseverative errors, supposedly the key measure of executive function in this task, did not show any differences between groups, but the more straightforward measures general competence at the task clearly did.
The first component consisted of a more disparate set of tasks measuring efficiency of visual search, speed and efficiency of vigilance, and the executive functions involved in WMST and WALK.
Acronyms browser ?
Full browser ?