Objective: To validate the translated Cantonese version of an ecologically valid clinical test of attention – the Test of Everyday Attention (TEA).
Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 49 healthy participants with a mean age of 25.9 years in the Hong Kong Chinese setting.
Outcome measures: These included the Color Trails Test, Stroop Colour-Word Test, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Word Fluency Test, Design Fluency Test, Digits Backward Span Test and Modified Six Elements Test. In addition, the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire and Dysexecutive Questionnaires were also administered to the participants.
Results: The TEA was found to have a good range of test–retest reliability. The convergent validity of the instrument was established by correlation of the TEA with various measurements of attention, whereas the divergent validity was demonstrated by the insignificant correlation with tests of other cognitive functioning. Factor analysis of the TEA subtests replicated the major factor structure of the original version.
Conclusion: The present study indicates that the translated TEA represents a culturally appropriate tool for measuring everyday life attention performance among the healthy Hong Kong Chinese.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Van Zomeren AH, Brouwer WH. Clinical neuropsychology of attention. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
2.
Blanc-Garin J. Patterns of recovery from hemiplegia following stroke. Neuropsychol Rehabil1994; 4: 359–385.
3.
Brooks DN, McKinlay W. Return to work within the first seven years of severe head injury. Brain Injury1987; 1: 5–15.
4.
Robertson IH, Ridgeway V, Greenfield E, Parr A. Motor recovery after stroke depends on intact sustained attention: a 2-year follow-up study. Neuropsychology1997; 11: 290–295.
5.
Robertson IH, Ward T, Ridgeway V, Nimmo-Smith I. The Test of Everyday Attention. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company, 1994.
6.
Robertson IH, Ward T, Ridgeway V, Nimmo-Smith I. The structure of normal human attention: the Test of Everyday Attention. J Int Neuropsychol Soc1996; 2: 525–534.
7.
Wechsler D. Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1981.
8.
D'Elia LF, Satz P, Uchiyama CL, White T. Color Trails Test Professional Manual. Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc, 1994.
9.
Lee TMC, Chan CCH. Stroop interference in Chinese and English. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol2000; 22: 465–471.
10.
Spreen O, Strauss E. A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary, second edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
11.
Burgess PW, Alderman N, Evans J, Wilson BA, Emslie H, Shallice T. Simplified Six Elements Test. In: Wilson BA, Alderman N, Burgess P, Emslie H, Evans J eds. Behavioral assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: Thames Valley Test Company, 1996.
12.
Jones-Gotman M. Localization of lesions by neuropsycholgical testing. Epilepsia1991; 32: S41–S52.
13.
Broadbent DE, Cooper PF, FitzGerald P, Parkes KR. The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. Br J Clin Psychol1982; 21: 1–16.
14.
Wilson BA, Alderman N, Burgess P, Emslie H, Evans J. Behavioral assessment of the dysexecutive syndrome. Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk: Thames Valley Test Company, 1996.
15.
Chan RCK. What does Cognitive Failures Questionnaire measure: general failures or specific domain deficits?Arch Clin Neuropsychol1999; 14: 735–736.
16.
Chan RCK. Dysexecutive symptoms among the non-clinical sample: a study with the use of the dysexecutive questionnaire. Br J Psychol2001; 92: 551–565.
17.
Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis with readings, fifth edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.
