Sensitivity of the Halstead and Wechsler Test Batteries to Brain Damage: Evidence from Reitan's Original Validation Sample

Abstract

The Halstead-Reitan Battery has been instrumental in the development of neuropsychological practice in the United States. Although Reitan administered both the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale and Halstead's test battery when evaluating Halstead's theory of biologic intelligence, the relative sensitivity of each test battery to brain damage continues to be an area of controversy. Because Reitan did not perform direct parametric analysis to contrast group performances, we reanalyze Reitan's original validation data from both Halstead (Reitan, 1955) and Wechsler batteries (Reitan, 1959a) and calculate effect sizes and probability levels using traditional parametric approaches. Eight of the 10 tests comprising Halstead's original Impairment Index, as well as the Impairment Index itself, statistically differentiated patients with unequivocal brain damage from controls. In addition, 13 of 14 Wechsler measures including Full-Scale IQ also differed statistically between groups (Brain Damage Full-Scale IQ = 96.2; Control Group Full Scale IQ = 112.6). We suggest that differences in the statistical properties of each battery (e.g., raw scores vs. standardized scores) likely contribute to classification characteristics including test sensitivity and specificity.

Notes

^a There is a slight discrepancy between the Category test values reported in the two source documents. The above values are reported in Reitan (1979). Reitan and Wolfson (1992) report control Category test performance of 32.28 (SD = 11.86) and a brain-damaged SD of 21.80.

Source: (Reitan, 1979, p. 53; Reitan & Wolfson, 1992, p. 526).

^a Although an SD of 19.86 is reported for the brain-damaged patients in Reitan and Wolfson (1992), we base our calculations on the 19.68 value reported in the Reitan (1959a) article.

Source: (Reitan, 1959a, p. 282).