This study investigated the differences between the Standard and Short forms of MicroCog by comparing Domain scores for a clinical sample of 351 substance abusers which gave a significant difference between scores on the Spatial Processing Domain. Implications for research and clinical use are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryJ.Van GorpW.HerzbergD. S.HinkinC.BooneK.SteinmanL.WilkinsJ. N. (1993) Neuropsychological deficits in abstinent cocaine abusers: Preliminary findings after two weeks abstinence. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 32, 231–237.
2.
LezakM. D. (1995) Neuropsychological assessment. (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford Univer. Press.
3.
LopezS. J. (1998) The validity of MicroCog: Assessment of cognitive functioning in a clinical sample of substance abusers. Unpublished dissertation, Univer. of Kansas.
4.
LopezS. J.RyanJ. J.SumerallS. W.LichtenbergJ. W.GlasnappD.KrieshokT. S.Van FleetJ. N. (2001) Demographic variables and MicroCog performance: Relationships for VA patients under treatment for substance abuse. Psychological Reports, 88, 183–188.
5.
PowellD. H.KaplanE. F.WhitlaD.WeintraubS.CatlinR.FunkensteinH. H. (1993) MicroCog: Assessment of cognitive functioning. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
6.
RyanC.ButtersN. (1989) Learning and memory impairments in young and old alcoholics: Evidence for the premature aging hypothesis. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 4, 288–303.
7.
WechslerD. (1987) Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
