O teste da Torre de Londres: comparação entre a versão tradicional e a aplicação computadorizada

Adriana Borges; Cristina Mara de Melo Machado  Andrade; Alberto Pena Pereira Timóteo; Carlos Guilherme Schlottfeldt; Emanuel Henrique Gonçalves Querino; Victor Polignano Godoy; Leandro Fernandesz  Malloy-Diniz

doi:10.25118/2763-9037.2018.v8.329

Autores/as

Adriana Borges Instituto Sapiens de Psicologia, Londrina, PR.
Cristina Mara de Melo Machado Andrade Instituto Sapiens de Psicologia, Londrina, PR.
Alberto Pena Pereira Timóteo Laboratório de Investigações em Neurociências Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG.
Carlos Guilherme Schlottfeldt Laboratório de Investigações em Neurociências Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG.
Emanuel Henrique Gonçalves Querino Laboratório de Investigações em Neurociências Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG.
Victor Polignano Godoy Laboratório de Investigações em Neurociências Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG.
Leandro Fernandesz Malloy-Diniz Laboratório de Investigações em Neurociências Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2018.v8.329

Palabras clave:

Neuropsicologia, Torre de Londres, tarefa computadorizada

Resumen

Introdução: A Torre de Londres (Tower of London – ToL) é uma tarefa neuropsicológica desenvolvida para avaliação da capacidade cognitiva de planejamento. Embora seja amplamente utilizada na neuropsicologia, existem evidências de que suas propriedades psicométricas são insatisfatórias. Objetivo: Comparar a versão original da tarefa com uma versão computadorizada e ampliada. Métodos: Foram submetidos à versão original e à computadorizada 91 adultos brasileiros (média = 37,6 anos; desvio padrão = 12,2 anos) com um mínimo de 8 anos de educação formal. Resultados: Foi observada uma correlação moderada entre a pontuação nas duas versões (rho = 0,42; p < 0,05). A versão tradicional apresentou consistência interna baixa (α = 0,471) em comparação à versão computadorizada (α = 0,771). Conclusão: Os resultados sugerem a ausência de equivalência entre as duas versões, sendo a computadorizada e ampliada mais robusta em termos psicométricos e com bom potencial para uso na clínica e pesquisas em neuropsicologia.

Descargas

Métricas

Visualizaciones del PDF

1,636

| |

Citas

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.