The Tower of London test: comparison between the traditional and the computerized versions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2018.v8.329Keywords:
Neuropsychology, Tower of London, computerized taskAbstract
Introduction: The Tower of London (ToL) is a widely used neuropsychological task developed to assess cognitive planning capacity. Despite its wide array of applications, there is evidence suggesting that the psychometric properties of the ToL are not satisfactory. Objective: To compare the original, wooden-made ToL instrument with a similar, but computerized and expanded, version of the ToL. Methods: A total of 91 Brazilian adults (mean age = 37.6 years, standard deviation = 12.2 years) with at least 8 years of formal education were administered both the traditional and the computerized versions of the ToL. Results: A moderate correlation was observed between the total scores obtained with the two versions (rho = 0.42; p < 0.05). The internal consistency of the original version was low (α = 0.471) in comparison to that of the computerized assessment (α = 0.771). Conclusion: The results suggest an absence of equivalence between the two versions investigated. More robust psychometric properties were found for the computerized variant of the ToL, suggesting its potential use in the field of neuropsychology, in both clinical and research settings.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Broadbent DE. Percepti on and communicati on. New York: Pergamon Press; 1958.
Broadbent DE. Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press; 1973.
Evans JSB, Barston JL, Pollard P. On the confl ict between logic and belief in syllogisti c reasoning. Mem Cognit. 1983;11:295-306.
Evans JSB. Heuristi c and analyti c processes in reasoning. Br J Psychol. 1984;75:451-68.
Evans JSB. Dual-process theories of reasoning: contemporary issues and developmental applicati ons. Dev Rev. 2011;31:86-102.
Norman DA, Shallice T. Att enti on to acti on: willed and automati c control of behavior technical report No. 8006. Washington: ERIC Clearinghouse; 1980.
Shallice T. Specifi c impairments of planning. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1982;298:199-209.
Owen AM, Downes JJ, Sahakian BJ, Polkey CE, Robbins TW. Planning and spati al working memory following frontal lobe lesions in man. Neuropsychologia. 1990;28:1021-34.
Nitschke K, Köstering L, Finkel L, Weiller C, Kaller CP. A Meta-analysis on the neural basis of planning: acti vati on likelihood esti mati on of functi onal brain imaging results in the Tower of London task. Hum Brain Mapp. 2017;38:396-413.
Carlin D, Bonerba J, Phipps M, Alexander G, Shapiro M, Grafman J. Planning impairments in frontal lobe dementi a and frontal lobe lesion pati ents. Neuropsychologia, 2000;38:655-65.
Riccio CA, Wolfe ME, Romine C, Davis B, Sullivan JR. Tower of London and neuropsychological assessment of ADHD in adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19:661-71.
Franceschi M, Caff arra P, Savarè R, Cerutti R, Grossi E; Tol Research Group. Tower of London test: a comparison between conventi onal stati sti c approach and modelling based on arti fi cial neural network in diff erenti ati ng fronto-temporal dementi a from Alzheimer’s disease. Behav Neurol. 2011;24:149-58.
Fu L, Xiang D, Xiao J, Yao L, Wang Y, Xiao L, et al. Reduced prefrontal acti vati on during the Tower of London and Verbal Fluency Task in pati ents with bipolar depression: a multi -channel NIRS study. Front Psychiatry. 2018;9:214.
Giovagnoli AR, Parente A, Didato G, Deleo F, Villani F. Expanding the spectrum of cogniti ve outcomes aft er temporal lobe epilepsy surgery: a prospecti ve study of theory of mind. Epilepsia, 2016;57:920-30.
Krikorian R, Bartok J, Gay N. Tower of London procedure: a standard method and developmental data. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1994;16:840-50.
Boccia M, Marin D, D’Antuono G, Ciurli P, Incoccia C, Antonucci G, et al. The Tower of London (ToL) in Italy: standardizati on of the ToL test in an Italian populati on. Neurol Sci. 2017;38:1263-70.
Michalec J, Bezdicek O, Nikolai T, Harsa P, Jech R, Silhan P, et al. A comparati ve study of Tower of London scoring systems and normati ve data. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2017;32:328-38.
Malloy-Diniz LF, Cardoso-Marti ns C, Nassif EP, Levy AM, Leite WB, Fuentes D. Planning abiliti es of children aged 4 years and 9 months to 8 1/2 years: eff ects of age, fl uid intelligence and school type on performance in the Tower of London test. Dement Neuropsychol. 2008;2:26-30.
Paula JJ, Neves F, Levy Â, Nassif E, Malloy-Diniz LF. Assessing planning skills and executi ve functi ons in the elderly: preliminary normati ve data for the Tower of London test. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2012;70:828-9.
Souza R, Ignácio FA, Cunha FC, Oliveira DL, Moll J. [Contributi ons to the neuropsychology of executi ve behavior: performance of normal individuals on the Tower of London and Wisconsin tests]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2001;59:526-31.
Portella MJ, Marcos-Bars T, Rami-Gonzalez L, Navarro-Odriozola V, Gasto-Ferrer C, Salamero M. [‘Tower of London’: mental planning, validity and the ceiling eff ect]. Rev Neurol. 2003;37: 210-3.
Luciana M, Collins PF, Olson EA, Schissel AM. Tower of London performance in healthy adolescents: the development of planning skills and associati ons with self-reported inatt enti on and impulsivity. Dev Neuropsychol. 2009;34:461-75.
Unterrainer JM, Rahm B, Kaller CP, Wild PS, Münzel T, Blett ner M, et al. Assessing planning ability across the adult life span in a large populati onrepresentati ve sample: reliability esti mates and normati ve data for the Tower of London (TOL-F) Task. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2019 Jan 30:1-10. doi: 10.1017/S1355617718001248. [Epub ahead of print]
Russell E. The scienti fi c foundati on of neuropsychological assessment: with applicati ons to forensic evaluati on. London: Elsevier; 2011.
Wild K, Howieson D, Webbe F, Seelye A, Kaye J. Status of computerized cogniti ve testi ng in aging: a systemati c review. Alzheimers Dement. 2008;4:428-37.
Feldstein SN, Keller FR, Portman RE, Durham RL, Klebe KJ, Davis HP. A comparison of computerized and standard versions of the Wisconsin Card Sorti ng Test. Clin Neuropsychol. 1999;13: 303-13.
Robinson SJ, Brewer G. Performance on the traditi onal and the touch screen, tablet versions of the Corsi Block and the Tower of Hanoi tasks. Comput Human Behav. 2016;60:29-34.
Tien AY, Spevack TV, Jones DW, Pearlson GD, Schlaepfer TE, Strauss ME. Computerized Wisconsin Card Sorti ng Test: comparison with manual administrati on. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 1996;12:479-85.
Noyes JM, Garland KJ. Computer- vs. paperbased tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics. 2008;51:1352-75.
Souza Rde O, Ignácio FA, Cunha FC, Oliveira DG, Moll J. Contribuição à neuropsicologia do comportamento executi vo: Torre de Londres e teste de Wisconsin em indivíduos normais. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2001;59:526-31.
D’Antuono G, La Torre FR, Marin D, Antonucci G, Piccardi L, Guariglia C. Role of working memory, inhibiti on, and fl uid intelligence in the performance of the Tower of London task. Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2017;24:548-58.
Zook NA, Davalos DB, Delosh EL, Davis HP. Working memory, inhibiti on, and fl uid intelligence as predictors of performance on Tower of Hanoi and London tasks. Brain Cogn. 2004;56:286-92.
Humes GE, Welsh MC, Retzlaff P, Cookson N. Towers of Hanoi and London: reliability and validity f two executi ve functi on tasks. Assessment. 1997;4:249-57.
Schnirman GM, Welsh MC, Retzlaff PD. Development of the Tower of London-revised. Assessment. 1998;5:355-60.
Köstering L, Stahl C, Leonhart R, Weiller C, Kaller CP. Development of planning abiliti es in normal aging: diff erenti al eff ects of specifi c cogniti ve demands. Dev Psychol. 2014;50:293-303.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Debates em Psiquiatria allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) - Debates em Psiquiatria is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
