Sport Psychology: Sport test battery for diagnostics and training

Dr. Gernot Schuhfried Gesellschaft m.b.H.Hyrtlstraße 45, A-2340 Mödling, Tel. +43/2236/42315-0, Fax: +43/2236/46597

[email protected] www.schuhfried.atSitz: Mödling, FN 104661p Landesgericht Wr. Neustadt, UID Nr. ATU 19273809

S P O R T P S Y C H O L O G Y

Sport test batteryfor diagnostics and training

2

Sport psychology

Contents1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................3

2 SPORT DIAGNOSTICS – THE VIENNA TEST SYSTEM .........................................................4

2.1 DAKT PERCEPTUAL SPEED AND ACCURACY TEST.......................................................................52.2 SMK SENSOMOTOR COORDINATION ...........................................................................................62.3 ISA INTELLIGENCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................72.4 AHA ATTITUDE TOWARDS WORK ................................................................................................82.5 2HAND TWO-HAND COORDINATION ...........................................................................................92.6 STROOP INTERFERENCE TEST................................................................................................102.7 PERSEV PERSEVERATION TEST..............................................................................................112.8 MLS MOTOR PERFORMANCE SERIES........................................................................................122.9 LVT VISUAL PURSUIT TEST ......................................................................................................132.10 CORSI CORSI-BLOCK- TAPPING-TEST .....................................................................................142.11 RT REACTION TEST .................................................................................................................152.12 DT DETERMINATION TEST ........................................................................................................162.13 VIGIL VIGILANCE.....................................................................................................................172.14 RA REACTION TIME ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................182.15 SIGNAL SIGNAL-DETECTION ...................................................................................................192.16 DAUF CONTINUOUS ATTENTION...............................................................................................202.17 COG COGNITRONE..................................................................................................................212.18 APM RAVEN’S ADVANCED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES .................................................................222.19 AMT ADAPTIVE MATRICES TEST...............................................................................................232.20 VISGED VISUAL MEMORY TEST...............................................................................................242.21 ZBA TIME-MOVEMENT ANTICIPATION........................................................................................252.22 PP PERIPHERAL PERCEPTION...................................................................................................262.23 TQ CREATING YOUR OWN QUESTIONNAIRE TEST USING THE TEST GENERATOR ...........................272.24 GESTA GESTALT PERCEPTION TEST........................................................................................282.25 B19 DOUBLE LABYRINTH TEST .................................................................................................292.26 EPP6 EYSENCK- PERSONALITY-PROFILER-V6 ..........................................................................30

3 SPORT TRAINING - REHACOM ...................................................................................................31

3.1 KONS VISUOCONSTRUCTIVE ABILITIES ......................................................................................323.2 MEMO TOPOLOGICAL MEMORY ................................................................................................333.3 RAUM SPATIAL OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................343.4 VIGI VIGILANCE........................................................................................................................353.5 EXPL EXPLORATION ................................................................................................................36

4 BIOFEEDBACK .............................................................................................................................37

4.1 PHYSIORECORDER .....................................................................................................................374.2 SOFTWARE ................................................................................................................................384.3 PROGRAM MODULES...................................................................................................................39

3

Vienna Test System

1 IntroductionThe company Dr. Schuhfried looks back on over forty years of successful activity. It wasmainly during the last decades that in collaboration with our scientific partners and customerswe managed to reach a level of excellence in the field of computerized diagnostics, trainingand biofeedback. As a result of which the company was recently granted the right to use theAustrian coat of arms of the Republic of Austria.

Our company policy is “Quality Through Competence”, a motto which stands behind all our ac-tivities in science, publishing and business. Traditionally the company has always been veryglobal in its outlook. This is why we are represented in 24 countries around the world and ourtests are available in up to 20 languages

This sport cataloge is divided into 3 sections and each section consists of an introduction anddescription of the test and training programms.

Vienna Test Systemcomputerized psychological diagnostics

RehaComcomputerized cognitive training

Biofeedback for Windowscomputerized biofeedback

At a time of constant change we feel that the cultural and social components of our endeav-ours are of great importance. Man, the human being as our partner, is therefore our mainconcern in spite of all necessary changes and adaptations.It is with this in mind that I would like to extend my thanks to all who have shown faith in usand express my hopes for a continued mutually satisfying collaboration.

Dr. Gernot Schuhfried

4

Vienna Test System2 Sport Diagnostics – the Vienna Test System

The Vienna Test System is fast becoming the worldwide standard: more than 5,000 systemsare used daily and so we are the worldwide market leader in computerized psychologicaltesting. Our Test System is a tool that has been specially developed for practical use aimedat addressing many of the questions involved in psychological testing.

The Vienna Test System enables the computerized application of a large number of highlydiverse psychodiagnostic tests and measuring procedures.

In developing the system much emphasis was placed on transparent structure and largelyuniform design. It is therefore simple to operate and easy to understand and does not requireany special computer skills.

The Vienna Test System supports the administration of both single tests and test batteries.Many of the single tests are available in different test versions.

When tests, test versions or a test battery have been selected, a respondent’s data are en-tered and the test programme is started.

When a test or test battery has been completed it may be scored immediately. The computersummarizes the raw scores obtained and performs a comparison against norms. The re-spondent's results are compared against an overall sample or a selected subsample basedon age, sex, or education level.

The results may be displayed in summary form on the screen or printed out as a short score.More detailed test data are always provided in printed form. The print options feature enablesthe examiner to specify the volume of data to be printed so that only those data will beprinted that are really required. This allows savings in time and paper.A powerful data management function provides an overview of respondents and tests com-pleted. It allows selection and listing as well as copying and deleting of data records bysearch criteria.

The Vienna Test System offers many functions making it a user-friendly and flexible instru-ment for the use in sport psychodiagnostics.

5

Tests

2.1 DAKT Perceptual Speedand Accuracy Test

Checking details fast and accurately

Eva Hagman and Oswald Bratfisch

© Dr. G. Schuhfried GmbH

The DAKT enables the reliable and valid measure-ment of ”Perceptual speed” and ”Accuracy/ Resi-stance to error” as basic elements of attention.Moreover, the test is suitable for the diagnosis ofperceptual disorders, e.g. dyslexia.

Application:The DAKT is primarily intended for personnel selection,career counseling, diagnosis and assessment. Addi-tional areas of use are traffic psychology (especiallyrailway and aviation psychology), military psychology aswell as within clinical settings.

Theoretical background:The DAKT measures Perceptual speed, defined as thecapacity to recognize details rapidly in a distractingperceptual environment and to differentiate them fromirrelevant material, and Accuracy, defined as the relationbetween the number of errors and the quantitative per-formance (error-percentage).

Research on mental ability using factor-analysis, hasunambiguously identified a perceptual factor whichinvolves a major component of speed. The DAKT repre-sents this factor, referred to as Perceptual Speed (P) inthe psychological literature.

Administration:The DAKT consists of three subtests differing in con-tent (Numbers, Letters, and Figures). The task is toidentify and mark critical items as fast and accuratelyas possible.

Test forms:There are two parallel test forms: S1 and S2. It is pos-sible to administer each of the subtests separately.

Scoring:The number of correctly solved items constitutes thescore for Perceptual Speed; the relation between er-rors and completed items constitutes the sore for Ac-curacy. The printout shows raw- and standard-scoresfor each subtest and for the total performance.

Reliability:The parallel-test reliability coefficients are rtt = 0.96 forPerceptual Speed and rtt = 0.84 for Accuracy.

Validity:The face validity is evident – the respondents thinkimmediately of “fast and accurate checking/attentionand concentration”. The logical validity is given by theoperational definition of Perceptual Speed and Accu-racy. Content validity has been proven through factoranalysis. Prognostic validity has been demonstratedfor occupations demanding, amongst other prerequi-sites, a high degree of perceptual speed and accuracy.Criteria used were “completed occupational educationwithout complications” and “poor performance on thejob”.

Norms/Comparative samples:Test-form S1: Norms for a sample of 109 Austrian and1120 Swedish adults are available. The Swedishnorm-group is also sub-divided according to educa-tional level, gender and age.

Test-form S2: Norms for a sample of 109 Austrian and189 Swedish adults are available.When comparing the Austrian and Swedish samplesno statistical differences were found. Thus, the sam-ples can be regarded as parallel.

Testing time:The testing time for each subtest is three minutes. Addapproximately four minutes for instructions and solvingthe practice items.

6

Tests2.2 SMK Sensomotor

CoordinationTracking – test to assess sensomotor coordinationability

Herbert Bauer, Giselher Guttmann, Michael Leodoterand Ulrich Leodolter


An impressive test with a striking elegance andsophistication in pretending 3 dimensions. Thejoystick helps to assess the sensomotor coordina-tion precisely.

Application:This test assesses the coordination of eye-hand, hand-hand, or eye-hand-foot by maneuvering a circularsegment that moves on its own about a 3-dimensionalroom.

Main areas of application: performance-oriented apti-tude diagnostics (especially for railway engine drivers,crane drivers etc., as well as for personnel of control-ling and observation activities), traffic psychology,aviation psychology, medicine, clinical psychology(assessment of coordinative deficits in clinical groups).

Theoretical background:The assumption is that movements are controlled byusing sensor information coming from current activi-ties. Occurring deviations between target value andactual value are revealed and corrected accordingly(the TOTE principle). The necessary time to coordi-nate one’s movements is essentially determined by thereceived and processed feedback information. Twocompletely separate constructs are assessed: the“Anticipative coordination ability“ refers to sensomotorcoordination necessary to maneuver an element to apre-set goal (target is known beforehand). The “Reac-tive coordination ability“ refers to sensomotor coordi-nation necessary to react adequately to an element’sspontaneous, unpredictable changes of direction (andsize) (ability to anticipate movements).

Test forms:There are four test forms:S1: Short form (screening; 10 minutes)S2: Standard form (15 minutes)S3: Long form (higher measurement accuracy; 20minutes)S4: Special form for foot pedals (10 minutes).

Administration:The element selected for this test is a geometricalshape (circular segment) that is easy to describe andis hardly influenced by any previous experiences.The screen depicts a room with a target position(green bars forming an upside-down “T”) and a ma-neuverable element (yellow circular segment). Thecircular segment starts moving about the room in

unpredictable directions (that remain the same for allrespondents). All test forms include a preceding in-struction and practice phase.

Scoring:The following seven variables are assessed: “Time inideal range“, Mean and dispersion of “Angle deviation“,“Horizontal deviation“, and “Vertical deviation “.

Reliability:The internal consistency is situated above r=.90 in allscales.

Validity:The results of statistical correlation analyses and inter-group comparisons (including other tests and variousexternal criteria) back up the convergent and discrimi-nant validity of the SMK. Extensive aviation psycho-logical validations (pilot selection) have been con-ducted with the Austrian Federal Army.

Norms/Comparative samples:Test forms S1-S3 are provided with age- and educa-tion-specific samples (n=239). Test form S4 can becompared to age-, gender-, and education-specificsamples (n=189).

Testing time:Instruction: about 5 minutes.S1: 10 minutes. S2: 15 minutes. S3: 20 minutes. S4:10 minutes.

7

Tests2.3 ISA Intelligence Structure

AnalysisTest to assess intelligence

ITB Institute for Testing and Talent Research GmbH,Bonn (managing director: E. Fay, G. Trost). G. Gittler,Institute for Psychology, University of Vienna


Comprehensive intelligence test battery: the threetest forms Standard, Simplified, and Advancedhelp to avoid overstrain or under-stimulation.

Application:Assessment of the intelligence level and structure;applicable to people aged 14 years and over for allcorresponding examinations.

Main areas of application: decisions regarding school,college, and career, performance-oriented aptitudediagnostics (the test can be applied in all kinds ofexaminations linked to general intelligence), clinicalpsychology, educational psychology, industrial andorganizational psychology, aviation psychology.

Theoretical background:The aim of this test was to make a differentiated as-sessment of general abilities at a medium abstractionlevel.This test for the analysis of the intelligence structureconsists of the following 9 item groups: Completingsentences, Finding similarities, Inferring relationships,Generic terms (=verbal intelligence functions); Practi-cal calculations, Continuing numerical series(=numeric intelligence functions); Recognizing dice,Assembling figures =figural-spatial imagination), andRemembering products (=memory).Between the memorization phase and the questions ofthe Item group “Remembering products“ there are theitem groups "Continuing numerical series" and " Infer-ring relationships".

Administration:There is a time limit for all item groups. Each groupstarts with a standardized instruction and some sam-ple items. The correct answer is embedded into themultiple-choice system. Individual items may be cor-rected several times. The respondent may also call upany item of a group again and modify the answerwithin the given time.

Test forms:S1: Standard form; S2: Simplified formS3: Advanced form

Scoring:The sum of correct answers (raw scores) is recordedfor the individual item groups, the corresponding cogni-tive abilities, as well as for the entire test.In addition, a norm comparison is conducted (percen-tile ranks, T-scores and IQ; confidence interval for theentire test and for item groups). The test protocol indi-cates the answers for each individual item (correct,incorrect, corrected, omitted) as well as the workingtime that was needed.

Reliability:The internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) of theitem groups varies between r=.78 (Completing sen-tences) and r=.89 (Continuing numerical series). Avalue of r=.97 was calculated for the entire test.

Validity:Correlations were shown in experiments with the Ra-ven Matrices APM (Raven, Raven & Court, 1998) andSPM (Raven, Raven & Court, 1979). For the itemgroups they varied between r=.30 and r=.41 (APM,n=237), and between r=.42 and r=.52 (SPM, n= 256),respectively, and amounted to r=.52 and r=.66, re-spectively, for the entire test. The correlations to INKA(Heyde, 1995) varied between r=.36 and r=.47 andamounted to r=.54 for the entire test (n=320).

Norms/Comparative samples:The norms were compiled between 1997 and 1999with a sample of n=3813. They were mainly studentsat the end of secondary education, but also students incollege and working people. These norms are avail-able as an overall sample and as age- and education-specific partial samples. The equivalence of the com-puterized and the paper-and-pencil versions wasproven and confirmed empirically.

Testing time:Test form S1: about 110 minutes (without breaks,instructions, etc.)Test form S2: about 65 minutes (without breaks, in-structions, etc.)Test form S3: about 55 minutes (without breaks, in-structions, etc.)

8

Tests2.4 AHA Attitude towards

WorkObjective personality test

Klaus Kubinger and Hannes Ebenhöh


Objective personality test to assess impulsive-ness/reflexivity as well as aspiration level, per-formance motivation and frustration tolerance.This test cannot be manipulated.

Application:Attitude towards work is an objective test battery toassess various personality dimensions by presentingsimple tasks.

Main areas of application: personality-based aptitudediagnostics, industrial and organizational psychology,decisions about school, college and career, sportspsychology.

Theoretical background:The test battery “Attitude towards Work“ providesobjective tests following R.B. Cattell, which examinethe cognitive aspect Impulsivity/Reflexivity as well asthe motivational psychological constructs Aspirationlevel, Performance motivation and Frustration toler-ance. The assessment of performance motivationfollows the approaches by McClelland and Atkinson.

Administration:The first subtest “Comparing surfaces“ assesses Im-pulsiveness/Reflexivity. The respondent may choseamong three possible answers (right/left/no decision)for deciding about which one of two simultaneouslypresented surfaces is larger. The second subtest“Coding symbols“ assesses the aspiration level andthe frustration tolerance of the respondents. They areto assign symbols to abstract shapes according to apre-set code, and then they are asked to estimate theirperformance in the next task. In addition, they receivefeedback messages. The third subtest “Differentiatingfigures“ assesses performance motivation. The re-spondent is asked to indicate which one out of varioussymbols does not belong.

Test forms:There is one test form.

Scoring:Three characteristic values are calculated in the sub-test “Comparing surfaces“: “Exactitude “, “Decisive-ness“ and “Impulsiveness/Reflexivity“. The subtest“Coding symbols“ provides the characteristic values“Performance level“, “Aspiration level“, “Frustrationtolerance“, “Time of maximum performance“ and “Tar-get discrepancy“. The last subtest “Differentiatingfigures“ calculates the characteristic value “Perform-ance motivation”.

Reliability:The specification of a standardized assessment errorseems not reasonable for the test Attitude towardsWork.

Validity:Due to the theoretically based derivation of the char-acteristic values, a content validity can be assumed.Ebenhöh (1994) and Kubinger (1995) showed in twostudies that individual characteristic values differenti-ate significantly between successful and less suc-cessful co-workers.Corresponding to the theory, different characteristicvalues in the two studies proved to be advantageous.Moreover, Kubinger & Hofmann (1998) showed in afactor-analytical study that “Impulsiveness/ Reflexivity“correlates with extroversion, whereas “Frustrationtolerance“ correlates with conscientiousness. “Per-formance motivation“ on the other hand seems to be afactor on its own and is not covered by the “Big Five“.

Norms/Comparative samples:A representative norm sample (n=326) is available.Furthermore, an evaluation sample (n=314) is alsoavailable which mainly encompasses students andemployees and is thus not representative. In addition,there is a sample of job applicants of the enterpriseNOKIA (n=498). Percentile ranks and T-scores areindicated, excluding for the moment of peak perform-ance.

Falsification:Various studies proved the test to be resistant againstmanipulation.

Testing time:The administration time of the subtests “Comparingsurfaces“ and “Coding symbols“ amounts to about 15minutes altogether. Note that the subtest “ Differenti-ating figures“ will usually take at least 20 minutes (45minutes maximum).

9

Tests2.5 2HAND Two-Hand

CoordinationTest for the check of visual-motor coordination

G. Schuhfried


The test 2HAND reliably assesses the eye-handand hand-hand coordination. The layout of thetrack makes a comparison of the coordinationperformance possible for simple and more de-manding tasks.

Application:Check of visual-motor coordination (eye-hand andhand-hand coordination), by moving a dot on a track,through the coordination of both hands.

Main areas of application: Aptitude diagnostics in theperformance area, motor capacity diagnostics, organ-izational psychology, traffic psychology, sport psychol-ogy.

Theoretical background:Two aptitude components lie at the center of the testrequirement: sensory-motor coordination between eyeand hand as well as that between both hands. Thespecial difficulty in coordinating both hands lies in thecapacity to visually assess left and right deviationsbetween target and actual state and to position thehands accordingly. Additionally the capacity to antici-pate the course of movement plays an important part.

Administration:The task consists in moving a luminary dot on a settrack, using two control knobs or two joysticks. Thistrack consists of three sections, which make differentdemands on the coordination of left and right hand.The dot is moved from the right to the left.

Test forms:Four test forms are available:S1: Administration with joysticks, 10 runsS2: Administration with joysticks, 4 runsS4: Administration with control knobs, 10 runsS5: Administration with joysticks (inverted directionassignment), 10 runs.

Scoring:The following variables are scored:“Overall mean duration”“Overall mean error duration”“Overall percent error duration” (results from the ratioof overall error duration to overall duration)"Coordination difficulty” (time difference standardizedto the length of the way between sections without orwithout need for coordination). This variable shows,with how much precision the coordination requirementis mastered. The value expresses, by which

factor the time requirement increases, if the samedistance is mastered once with (semi-circle and V-shape) and once without sensory-motor coordinationrequirement (inverted L). The variable is therefore ameasure for the respondent's coordination capacity.

Reliability:The inner consistency (Cronbach‘s Alpha) varies be-tween r=.85 and r=.97.

Validity:The content validity of the test in the sense of logicalvalidity is given. Karner and Neuwirth (2000) were ableto show, that the performance in 2HAND is signifi-cantly connected to the assessment of driving per-formance, r=.50. Furthermore these authors were ableto prove that persons with P<33 received significantlyworse results in a standardized driving test.

Norms/ Comparative samples:For test form S1 comparison values with healthy adults(n=151), Swedish job seekers (n=209), applicants for atechnical training (n=186), traffic-psychological clien-tele (n=126), people with evident alcohol problems(n=100) and BT norms (n=110) are available.Test form S2 was standardized using adults (n=244),Luxemburgian job seekers (n=2867) and traffic-psychological clientele (n=54)Results of test form S4 can be compared with adults(n=115), Swedish job seekers (n=386) and traffic psy-chological clientele (n=930)Test form S5 was calibrated using adults (n=182).

Testing time:About 10 min.

10

Tests2.6 STROOP Interference

TestTest to assess the color-word interference

G. Schuhfried


This test provides a fair and highly reliableassessment of the ability to inhibit overlearnedanswers to simple tasks.

Application:Registration of the color-word interference tendency,i.e. impairment of the reading speed or color recogni-tion due to interfering information; applicable to adults.

Main areas of application: clinical psychology, neuro-psychology.

Theoretical background:The present form of the Stroop interference test is acomputerized realization of the Color- Word interfer-ence paradigm by Stroop (1935). It is based on theassumption that reading speed of a color-word isslower, if the word is written in a differently coloredfont. There is always a delay in naming the color ofthis word, if color and color-word do not match. Thisparadigm results in two experimental conditions with-out interference influences:

1. Determination of the reading speed of a color wordalone and

2. Determination of color naming speed.

This initial performance is used as "baseline" and canbe related to the two so-called interference conditions,which are described below:

1. Reading speed alone with the experimental set-up"color interference": reading speed of the color worddecreases if the word is written in a different color,and

2. The experimental set-up "word interference", wherenaming the color is made more difficult since color-word and color in which the color word is written donot match.

Test forms:Generally four test forms are available. Test forms S4,S7 and S10 determine first the "Baseline" then the"interference condition". The three test forms vary asregards the input medium and the instructions (therespondent names/does not name the color aloud).Test form S8 differentiates between so-called "congru-ent" items – color and meaning of the word match -and "incongruent" items – color and meaning of theword DO NOT match.

Administration:The task is to press the correct respective entry field orcolor button as fast as possible.

Scoring:The main variables are reading interference (the dif-ference of the reaction time medians of the ”readinginterference condition" and the "reading baseline") andthe naming interference (the difference of the reactiontime medians of the "naming interference condition"and the "naming baseline").Additionally, the following variables are issued for eachindividual test part: ”Median reaction time“ and the”Number of incorrect answers“.The test protocol shows each single reaction of therespondent with reaction time of the respondent andevaluation of the solution.

Reliability:The split-half reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) for alltests were found to be between r=.90 und r=.98.

Validity:The validity of the test STROOP-Tests is confirmed bynumerous comparative examinations with clinicalgroups and healthy people (extreme groups valida-tion), as well as by examinations regarding its conver-gent and divergent validity. The computerized formwas designed exactly according to the paradigm of thecolor-word interference by Stroop, taking into accountfurther scientific developments (e.g. Bäumler, 1985). Itproved that patients with cerebral lesions require muchmore time to do tasks under interference conditions,and that the test STROOP differentiates reliably be-tween patients and healthy people (c.f. Perret, 1974; inWittling, 1983; Beaumont, 1987).

Norms/Comparative samples:S4: “Normal people“ (n=54), S7: “Normal people“(n=26), S8: “Normal people“ (n=6).

Testing time:About 15 minutes.

11

Tests2.7 PERSEV Perseveration

TestA computerized enhanced version of the MitteneckerPointing experiment

G. Schuhfried


Objective Test for the assessment of the persev-eration tendency.

Application:Assessment of the perseveration tendency (stereo-typies) can be used as of 6 years of age.Main areas of application: clinical psychology (esp.clinical routine diagnostics), neuropsychology, sportpsychology.

Theoretical background:The consensus in scientific literature is that persevera-tion means an unwarranted repetition in cognitiveprocesses and ways of behavior. Resistance tochange and rigidity take the place of variability, flexibil-ity and adaptability.The motor perseveration or "stereotypy" is marked bya high measure of repetitions of certain action se-quences. Most theories see perseveration as anarousal phenomenon, which follows mental and cen-tral nervous processes.The perseveration tendency was noted by Mitteneckerin a pointing experiment. In this experiment the re-spondents have to touch numbers between 1 and 10in an unsystematic way, with a pen. The extent of theindividual repetition tendency was determined usinginformation-theoretical values.

Administration:Nine big circles are displayed on the monitor. As inMittenenecker's experiment 64 "beeping sounds" arepresented per minute. The task consists in pressingwith the light pen on the circles, to the tact of thetones. The test contains an instruction and a practicephase, in which the respondent receives feedback.After 210 entries the program marks the end of thetest.


Scoring:The following information theoretical values are calcu-lated:"Redundancy of the first degree" (R1) as relative pref-erence of individual circles.Since this variable also shows very marked intra-individual variances and high standard deviations forhealthy people, it should rather be viewed as controlvariable. A low percentage rank points to a preferencefor certain circles."Redundancy of the second degree" (R2) as themeasure for the preference for individual combinationsof two cirlces (after circle X the light pen preferablypointed to circle Y). The 81 combination options can-not be consciously controlled anymore by

the respondent. The lower the value is for R2, thegreater the randomness of the circle-pointing, i.e. thereis no preference for specific combinations of pairs.Patients with organic brain damages or patients withpsychiatric symptoms display a marked preference forcertain sequences of pairs. Control variables: "Omit-ted" and "Multiple reactions" in the interval betweentwo beeping sounds.

Reliability:The split-half reliability (odd-even) varies betweenr=.86 and r=.91 for the "Redundancy of the 1st order".For the variable "Redundancy of the 2. order the samecalculation mode was applied to produce reliabilitiesbetween r=.81 and r=.87.

Validity:A number of studies with the pointing experimentshowed a significantly higher perseveration for clinicalrespondent groups in the following ascending order:epileptics, cerebral-organically impaired patients orpatients with brain injuries, depressive patients, neu-rotics and schizophrenics. These results were con-firmed when applying the computerized PerseverationTest to patients with cranio-cerebral injuries. Addition-ally it is deemed evident, that rigidity and inflexibility ofcognitive processes result in a greater repetition ten-dency of certain courses of action. In a study by Stof-fers et al. (2001) it is reported, that when comparingtwo respondent groups with early signs of MorbusParkinson (of which one groups was treated withmedical drugs and the other one not) by the Persev-eration Test, a marked reduction in the capacity tocreate patterns at random could be found in bothgroups.

Norms/ Comparative Samples:Norms for n=417 healthy persons between the ages of6 to 95 years. Additionally test results were comparedto age-specific partial samples.

Testing time:About 5 minutes

12

Tests2.8 MLS Motor Performance

SeriesTest for the measurement of fine motor abilities

K.J. Schoppe & W. Hamster


Comprehensive fine motor abilities test batterywith special norms for Morbus Parkinson patients.

Application:Measurement of fine motor abilities through static anddynamic tasks for finger, hand and arm movement, tobe used from seven years of age onwards.

Main areas of application: Neuropsychology (alsorehabilitation), motor abilities diagnostics, organiza-tional psychology, aptitude diagnostics in the perform-ance area, sport psychology, medicine and pharma-cology.

Theoretical background:The Motor Performance Series (MLS) is a test batterydeveloped by Schoppe based on Fleishman's factor-analytic examinations of fine motor abilities. The fol-lowing six factors of fine motor abilities are analyzedby the MLS:- Aiming (aiming of motion)- Hand unrest, tremor- Precision of arm-hand movements- Manual dexterity and finger dexterity- Rate of arm and hand movements- Wrist-finger speed.

Administration:The MLS Work Panel is required for the administrationof the MLS. The dimensions of this Work Panel are300x300x15 mm and it is covered with boreholes,grooves and contact surfaces. A pen is attached toeach edge (left and right) of the Work Panel. The rightpen is black, the left one red. The following tasks haveto be carried out on the Work Panel:Steadiness (one or both hands)Line tracking (one hand)Aiming (one or both hands)Inserting pins (one or both hands)Tapping (one or both hands).

Test forms:The following test forms are available:S1: Standard form according to Schoppe & Hamster(17 subtests)S2: Short form according to Sturm & Büssing (8 sub-tests)S3: Short form according to Vassella (10 subtests)The selection of individual test forms for test presenta-tion is possible.

Scoring:Result table:Speed and/or accuracy measurements are calculatedfor the right and left hand for one-handed and two-handed administration.Result table for fine motor abilities factors:Table with mathematically estimated Fleishman factorsfor the right hand.Profile:The standardized variables and the Fleishman factorscan be displayed in a profile.

Reliability:For the subtest-parameters aiming, line tracking andtapping retest coefficients were calculated (test-retestinterval 1 day). They varied between rtt=.52 and rtt=.92for the right and rtt=.60 to rtt=.90 for the left hand. Forthe subtest "Tapping" (variable "Hits") the consistencycoefficient (Cronbach’s Alpha) was calculated. It lies atr=.94.

Validity:Factor-analytic control examinations on clinical groupsand one group of healthy persons led to the result thatthe six factors of the MLS clarify over 85% of the over-all variance.Comparisons between people with or without distur-bances of the central motor system showed significantand highly significant differences in performance. Thisconfirms that impairments in fine motor function can beobjectified using the MLS. Only low correlations up to.35 were found between the variables of the MLS andcognitive requirements, as expressed e.g. in HAWIE,CFT and the STROOP-Test and to various personalitydimensions (e.g. extroversion, neuroticism, rigidity).

Norms/Comparative samples:Test form S1: Comparative sample school studentsbetween the ages of 13 and 19 (n=300); universitystudents between the age of 18 and 26 (n=100); com-parative sample adults (n=420).Test form S2: Comparative sample patients withoutneurological symptoms (n=200), 2 samples patientswith Morbus Parkinson (n=70 and n=114); compara-tive sample IEFP clients –Portuguese. They are then=320 clients of the company IEFP, tested in the years1999 and 2000. Comparative sample traffic psycho-logical clientele – Portuguese They are n=1904 Portu-guese respondents in traffic psychological studies.Test form S3: Right-handed children and adolescents(Vassella in Bern, n=352), right-handed children andadolescents (Hiebsch - Martin Luther Universität Halle,n=93); left-handed children and adolescents (Hiebsch -Martin Luther Universität Halle, n=29).

Testing time:About 15 to 20 minutes (for the short form).

Test with peripheral unit

13

Tests2.9 LVT Visual Pursuit TestTest for the assessment of selective attention

Bernd Biehl


This test serves for the measurement of the visualorientation performance for simple structures in acomplex environment and is characterized by ahigh reliability and numerous criterion-relatedproofs of validity.

Application:Diagnostics of the selective attention in the visualarea; to be used with adults.

Main areas of application: Aptitude diagnostics in thearea of performance, organizational psychology, trafficpsychology, sport psychology.

Theoretical background:Special psychological tests are used to check complexdimensions of perception. Most often they were de-veloped on the basis of certain experiment-psychological or practical methods. The present visualpursuit test is not merely a new version of an old test,but rather it was developed out of the experiences andobservations with numerous previous versions. Theaspect of visual orientation performance is assessed,which consists in pursuing simple optical structures ina relatively complex environment, in a target-orientedway, under time pressure and ignoring distractions.This is why it is also suited for the diagnostics of se-lective attention in the visual area.

Administration:The test consists of a combined instruction and prac-tice phase. If the 8 practice items are processed withless than 3 errors, the items of the test phase arepresented. The respondents must find the end of apresented line. The respondent can freely choose theworking speed.

Test forms:A test form S1 (long form with 80 items) and a testform S2 (short form with 40 items) are available.

Scoring:Scoring is achieved according to the following vari-ables:"Score""Mean time correct answers" (sec).

Reliability:The inner consistency is of r=.96 for the long form andof r=.92 for the short form.

Validity:Currently, studies by Cale (1992) as well as Neuwirth& Karner (2000) and Sommer (2002) are available, inwhich it was demonstrated that persons with perform-ances below average had more accidents, or that theirdriving performance was rated lower. Sommer (2002)was also able to show, that a test battery containingthe LVT, 74.4% of the global judgments of the drivingbehavior in a standardized driving test could be accu-rately predicted. Additionally, group comparisons areavailable between the normal population and alcoholicproblem drivers (Karner, 2000) and neurological andpsychiatric patients (Neuwirth & Dorfer, 2000) areavailable. These studies provide ample proof for thecriterion-validity of the LVT. The construct validity isproved by highly significant correlations of the char-acteristic values of the LVT with a similarly constructedtest the ART 90 (Karner, 2000), as well as additionaltest, for the assessment of attention and concentra-tion.(Wagner, 1999).

Norms/Comparative samples:The following norms are currently available:

Long form:A sample of n=104 adults.

Short form:A representative calibration sample of n=785 persons,divided into 5 age levels.Traffic-psychological clientele (cohort sample fromTÜV examination centers from all over Germany aswell as for Austria from INFAR as well as from ARGE)of n=4104 persons.Traffic-psychological clientele (Portugal) of n=166persons.A representative norm sample of n=800 persons fromSouth Africa.

Testing time:Short form about 15 minutes,Long form about 25 minutes.

14

Tests2.10 CORSI Corsi-Block-

Tapping-TestTest to assess the visual-spatial memory span (UBS)and the implicit visual-spatial learning (SBS)

Dieter Schellig


Neuropsychological studies prove that the im-mediate block span can depict deficits that are notassessed by common tests for the registrations ofthe verbal memory span.

Application:Assessment of the capacity of the visual short-termmemory and of the implicit visual-spatial learning;applicable to people aged 6 years and over.

Main areas of application: clinical psychology, neuro-psychology.

Theoretical background:Tests, which examine the memory span, are mainlyfocusing on the short-term memory that is providedwith a limited capacity only. The assessment of thememory span is an important factor. The short-termmemory is provided with a verbal subsystem as wellas a visual-spatial subsystem. These subsystems canbe damaged separately form each other by braintraumata, which is a proof of their - almost complete -independency. The Block-Tapping-Test for the regis-tration of the immediate block span (UBS) assessesthe capacity of the visual-spatial subsystem within theshort-term memory. The theoretical background ischaracterized by Baddeley’s concept of the workingmemory. The Block-Tapping-Test for the registration ofthe supra-block span (SBS) goes beyond the assess-ment of the short-term memory: sequences are usedthat exceed the respondent’s visual memory span andthus make necessary to acquire specific learn proc-esses. They imply to learn a frequently repeated se-quence that is embedded into a pool of sequenceswith equal length. The respondent does not know thata sequence is repeated in the items that are pre-sented: implicit learning is being operationalized. Thetest registers the number of repetitions until the rele-vant sequence is imitated correctly. It was designed inthe context of neuropsychological experiments of theright temporal lobe.

Administration:The screen shows 9 irregularly placed dice. A pointermoves from one die to another in a sequence thatgrows with each new item group. The respondent isrequired to reproduce the order the dice were se-lected. After answering 3 items (with three sequenceseach), one more die is presented in the next item. Thetest is cancelled in case the respondent answers threesubsequent sequences incorrectly.In order to assess the implicit visual spatial learning(supra-block span), first the test registers the im-

mediate block span of the respondent. Then se-quences with one more block (die) are presented. Thetest encompasses 24 sequences altogether. Threesequences constitute one item, and three items (orfour, including incorrect answers) always belong toone item group with the same number of dice. The testends automatically after the respondent has repro-duced all 24 sequences.

Test forms:The following test forms are available: S1: immediateblock span, for adults; S2: immediate block span, forchildren and clinical patients; S3: immediate and su-pra-block span, for adults; S4: immediate and supra-block span, for children and clinical patients. Theforms for children present sequences from 2 to 8 dice,whereas the forms for adults use sequences from 3 to8 dice.

Scoring:The variable ”Immediate block span“ operationalizesthe visual-spatial memory span. It corresponds to thelongest sequence that has been reproduced correctlyat least once. The variable ”Supra-block span“ opera-tionalizes the implicit visual-spatial learning. It corre-sponds to the number of attempts until the respondentreproduced a sequence correctly.

Reliability, validity:The Block-Tapping-Test is mentioned in literature as afrequent means to examine the visual-spatial memoryspan, and has also widely been applied in the clinicalcontext. Experiments on patients with cerebral lesionsusing the Block-Tapping-Test prove that it assesses avisual-spatial function of the short-term memory, whichis independent of the verbal subsystem.

Norms/Comparative samples:“Cut-off scores” were calculated instead of a com-monly used standardization. In case the immediateblock span of a respondent is situated below the cut-off value, a footnote is inserted in the result sheet.


15

Tests2.11 RT Reaction TestMeasurement of the reaction time to optical andacoustic stimuli

G. Schuhfried


By its clever combination of different test formsthe RT is ideally suited as a test battery to checkattention.

Application:Apart from recording reaction times down to the milli-second, it also covers the areas of alertness, the abilityto repress an inadequate reaction (an area relevant inattention diagnostics), vigilance and intermodal com-parisons (directed attention) in special forms. It canalready be used with children starting from the age of6.

Main areas of application: Aptitude diagnostics in thearea of performance, organizational psychology, motorskills diagnostics, flight psychology, sport psychology,traffic psychology, medicine and pharmacology, clini-cal psychology.

Theoretical background:With the Reaction Test the measurement of the reac-tion time is possible as single-choice reaction and assimple multiple-choice reaction. The stimulus modali-ties light/tone and the characteristics red/yellow/whiteare available, so that different stimulus constellationsfor the measurement of reaction time can be pro-duced. These can go from individual stimuli to simulta-neous or sequentially presented stimulus combina-tions. The use of a rest and a reaction key makes thesplitting into reaction and motor time possible.

Administration:The respondent receives the instruction, to press thereaction key only when relevant stimuli are presented.

Test forms:Test forms S1-S5 assess the reaction time (split intoreaction and motor time) needed to respond to simpleand complex optical or acoustic signals. They alsoassess attention deficit disorders (it also serves torecord the ability to repress an inadequate reactionand for inter-modal comparisons).Test form S1: simple reaction yellowTest form S2: simple reaction soundTest form S3: choice reaction yellow/soundTest form S4: choice reaction yellow/redTest form S5: choice reaction yellow/sound or yel-low/redTest form S6: This test form is especially suited torecord the reaction time course over a longer period oftime under monotonous stimulus conditions (vigi-lance). Test forms S7-S8: Measurement of alertness.S7: simple reaction yellow (with acoustic warning sig-nal)

S8: simple reaction sound (with optical warning signal)Test forms S9-S10: These test forms serve to meas-ure the reaction time to simple optical or acoustic sig-nals and are especially suited for problems, whereabsolute reaction times (i.e. not norms) are important(e.g. for experts' reports). Reaction times are not splitinto reaction and motor times.S9: simple reaction yellow, measurement of reactiontime onlyS10: simple reaction sound, measurement of reactiontime only

Scoring:Four main variables are recorded:"Median reaction time", “Median motor time”, "Distribu-tion reaction time”, “Distribution motor time”

Reliability:The reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) in the norm samplevary between r=.83 and r=.98 for the reaction timeand between r=.84 and r=.95 for the motor time.

Validity:The content (logical) validity is given for the ReactionTest. The presentation of an individual stimulus for onesecond is such a simple requirement, that it can beassumed, that nothing but a reaction to that stimulusoccurs.

Norms/Comparative samples:For the test form S1, S2 and S3 the comparison with astratified norm sample according to relevant referencegroups is possible (S1: n=139, S2: n=157, S3:n=567).Furthermore, for S3, there are cohort samples ofproblem drivers (n=1830) and of South African per-sons (n=935). A norm of S1-S3 for primary schoolchildren was also executed. Additionally there is acohort sample for the test form S4 (n=80) as well ascomparative samples for the test forms S5 and S6 (S5:n=170, S6: n=105). The sample sizes for the alertnesstest forms S7 and S8 are of 75 and 111 persons. Forthe test forms S9 and S10 there are comparative sam-ples of n=198 and n=101 persons.

Testing time:About 5-10 minutes.

16

Tests2.12 DT Determination TestComplex multiple-stimuli reaction test

G. Schuhfried


Universally applicable test for the assessment ofdifferent relevant performance dimensions for almostall areas of psychological diagnostics.

Application:Measurement of reactive stress tolerance, attention defi-cits and reaction speed in the presence of rapidly chang-ing and continuous optical and acoustic stimuli.

Main areas of application: Aptitude diagnostics in the areaof performance, neuropsychology, clinical psychology,traffic psychology, medicine and pharmacology, sportpsy-chology, motor aptitude diagnostics and organiza-tional psychology.

Theoretical background:The central objects of measurement in the D-test arereactive stress tolerance and the related reactionspeed. The D-test requires, as cognitive partial per-formances, to discriminate colors and acoustic signals,to memorize the relevant characteristics of stimulusconfigurations and response buttons as well as theassignment rules, and to select the relevant reactionsaccording to the assignment rules laid down in theinstructions and/or learned during the course of thetest. The difficulty of the D-Test lies in the productionof continuous, sustained rapid and varied reactions torapidly changing stimuli.

Administration:This test is an enhanced version of the Vienna Deter-mination Unit (D-Unit). However, the color stimuli arepresented via the monitor and the acoustic stimuli viathe Test System interface. Pressing the appropriatebuttons on the universal panel enters the reaction. Inspite of these differences studies show that the resultsof DT and D-Unit coincide to a large extent (Karner &Biehl, 2001). Stimulus presentation occurs in threedifferent ways, namely in the adaptive mode (the pres-entation speed adjusts to the performance level of therespondent), in the action mode (no time limit) and inthe reaction mode (fixed time limit). The headsetssupplied guarantee an undisturbed stimulus presen-ta-tion.

Test forms:S1 (adaptive short), S2 (adaptive), S3 (Rostock form), S4(Hanover form), S5 (Vienna form A), S6 (Vienna form B)und S16 (Turkish form). The following test forms weremainly developed for clinical examinations: S7 (centrallight presentation), S8: Meidling form A to S15(Meidling form H).

Scoring:Depending on the stimulus-reaction mode the vari-ables "Median reaction time", "Correct (on time, de-layed)”, "Incorrect", "Omitted" and “Number of Stimuli".

Reliability:Cronbach’s Alpha for the main variables is of r=.99.

Validity:A study by Karner (2000) shows differences betweendrivers with evident alcohol problems and the norm groupin the Determination Test. The test results of the driverswith evident alcohol problems were significantly inferior tothose of the norm population, from which we can deduce,that this test is sensitive to alcohol-related decay proc-esses. A study by Neuwirth & Dorfer (2000) showed thatthe Determination Test distinguishes between all theexamined assigned groups (psychiatric and neurologicalpatients and alcoholic patients, resp.) and the normgroup. One study (Karner & Neuwirth, 2000) showedsignificant correlations between the tests DT and RST3(Karner & Biehl, 2001).

Norms/Comparative samples:S1 and S2: Norms were established using a sample of"healthy normal people" (S1: n=1179; S2: n=797). Inaddition there are norms available for a group of driverswith increased risk (n=4949). Portuguese norms (trafficpsychology clients, n=123 and Adults, n=144), classifiedby age, gender and education level are available. S3:There is a norm for adults (n=102). S4: Norms for adults(n=229) and for German professional drivers (n=888)were recorded. S5: A norm for adults (n=258) is available.Additionally there are norms available of n=182 Germanprofessional drivers and a norm sample South Africa(n=983). S6: One norm for a sample of adults of n=392 isavailable.

Testing time:About 6-15 minutes.

17

Tests2.13 VIGIL VigilanceTest to assess the sustainability of attention inmonotonous stimulus situations

G. Schuhfried


The assessment of vigilance based on monoto-nous monitoring tasks is realistic, valid and highlyreliable.

Application:Assessment of attention under continuous stress in theform of sustained vigilance in a situation with few sti-muli; applicable for people aged 7 years and over.

Principle area of use: clinical psychology, aptitudediagnostics, aviation psychology, sports psychology,industrial psychology, educational psychology, decisi-ons regarding school and career selection.

Theoretical background:The demands on vigilance are determined by the fol-lowing factors: During a longer testing time, the re-spondent is required to show continuous attention. Therelevant signals appear randomly and do not automa-tically attract attention. This requires a relatively lowintensity of stimulus presentation and a low frequencyof critical incidents. Generally, a maximum of 60 criti-cal stimuli per hour are suggested. The drop in per-formance during vigilance experiments is due to thedecrease in the activation level of the respondentaccompanied by the growing reaction latency. Accor-ding to the neurophysiological activation theory, thecortex is insufficiently stimulated by the increasingreticular activation system (ARAS) due to a lack ofstimuli. The cerebral cortex does not receive sufficientalarms necessary to maintain certain activities, whichleads to mental fatigue and a decrease in performanceefficiency. This is the context in which the term over-strain through under stimulation arose.

Administration:A brightly flashing dot travels along a circular path insmall jumps. Sometimes, however, the dot takes adouble jump to which the respondent has to react bypressing a button.

Test forms:Standard test form S1 (Quatember-Maly):The individual dots of the circular path are shown onthe monitor (as circles). This form differentiates onlyamong performances that are significantly below aver-age (especially suitable for the examination of patientswith apparently significant vigilance deficiency).Standard test form S2 (Müggenburg): In this form nocircular path is shown on monitor. The respondentshave to estimate whether the flashing dot has taken adouble jump (=crucial stimulus) or not.

Standard test form S4 (Müggenburg-66): It equalsstandard test form S2, only that the testing time wasincreased to 66 minutes. The frequency of crucialstimuli in standard test forms S2 and S4 is significantlylower than in S1.

Scoring:“Number of correct“, “Number of incorrect“, “Meanvalue of reaction time correct (sec.)“, “Increase cor-rect“ and “Increase in reaction time correct” includingthe respective measurements.

Reliability:Depending on the test version and comparativesample, the following values were calculated as split-half reliabilities: number of correct: r=.80 to r=.95;mean of reaction times: r=.88 to r=.99.

Validity:The validity in the form of the criterion validity is given:All criteria mentioned as necessary in the most im-portant theories are met. Experiments to determinethe extreme group validity showed significantly lowerresults for patients with right-sided brain damagescompared to patients with left-sided brain damages.

Norms/Comparison samples:S1: samples of “Adults“ (n=292), “Child-ren/Adolescents from 6 to 17 years (n=619), “Jobseekers in Sweden “ (n=245), “Traffic-psychologicalclientele" (n=143), and “Neurological patients (n=51)”.S2: “Guideline for adults“, samples of “Psychiatricpatients“ (n=111), “Job seekers in Sweden“ (n=490),“Swedish applicants for technical occupations“(n=367), and ”Aviation Pilots - Portuguese norms “(n=178). S4: a comparative sample of patients withsleep apnoea (n=114) is available for this test form.

Testing time:S1: 30 minutes. S2: 35 minutes. S4: 70 minutes.

18

Tests2.14 RA Reaction Time

AnalysisTest to assess cognitive speed

W. U. Dormann, Th. Pfeifer & J. A. Prieler


With Reaction Time Analysis the slowing down ofreactions can be assessed in a differentiated wayaccording to the three stages of activity regulation(perception, cognitive processing and motor re-sponse organization. This shall be especially use-ful for the representation of the course of illnessesin an advanced age. But the RA can also be usedas a tool for aptitude diagnostics.

Application:Assessment of the cognitive speed concerning per-ception, processing and motor response organizationfor choice reaction tasks and visual search, to be usedwith adults.

Main areas of application: clinical psychology, organ-izational psychology, traffic psychology, flight psychol-ogy, sport psychology.

Theoretical background:The Reaction Time Analysis is based on Sternberg'sModel of Additive Factors (Sternberg, 1969). Accord-ing to this there are serial and independent processstages, and the measurable reaction time is the sum ofthe processing times of all stages. What varies are theinfluence factors, which selectively influence individualstages in their processing time. The effects triggeredthrough the reaction time make conclusions about theprocessing time of individual stages possible. To influ-ence the perception stage the discriminability of thefigures displayed on the monitor (circle, rectangle,square, star, cross, ellipse) is varied by partial cover-ing with a screen. The variation of the cognitive proc-essing stage is based on the Visual Search Model bySchneider and Shiffrin (1977). The authors showedthat visual search processes are realized by serial andself-canceling comparison steps. In the test one or twobetween two simultaneously presented figures have tobe searched for. That way the extent of the necessarycomparison steps varies. For the variation of the motorresponse organization step, the complexity of thereaction to be executed is modified (reaction with onefinger or with a sequence of three keys). By this themental response program is influenced in its centralmotor parts (Rosenbaum and Saltzmann, 1984).

Administration:The respondent is guided through the experimentinteractively. In the experiment 14 stimulus series with20 individual stimuli each for choice reaction tasks or16 individual stimuli for visual search tasks are to beprocessed.

Test forms:One standard test form is available.

ScoringThe following variables are scored- Information processing, perception and motor re-sponse organization- Choice reaction and simple reaction times- Error frequencies

Reliability:The inner consistencies of the scales all vary between.85 and .99 and must be seen as very satisfactory.

Validity:The Reaction Time Analysis was administered undersimultaneous conduction of event-related cerebralpotentials (ERP) (Dormann, Pfeifer, Nickel, 1991). Itcould be shown, that the variation of experimentalconditions, which influences the stimulus assessmenttime (perception stage, cognitive processing stage)also leads to a lengthening of the peak time of the latepositive complex in ERP (P300). Contrary to that, thevariation of experimental conditions, which has aneffect after the stimulus assessment (concerns themotor sequence that influences the motor responseorganization), does not lead to peak time defermentsof the P 300. This basically confirmed the stage model.Additionally, comparative studies were able to confirmresults on age-related slowing down as well as slowingdown for the organic psycho-syndrome.

Norms/Comparative samples:The comparison with a comparative sample stratifiedaccording to relevant reference groups (age, educationlevel) is possible (n=162).

Administration time:About 25 minutes.

19

Tests2.15 SIGNAL Signal-DetectionTest to quantify the performances of attention and visualdifferentiation

G. Schuhfried


Based on the signal detection theory, this testassesses the visual detailed registration of com-plex stimuli under time pressure over a longerperiod of time.

Application:Assessment of the long-term selective attention, visualdifferentiation of a relevant signal within irrelevantsignals; application for people aged 10 years and over.

Main areas of application: health psychology, clinicalpsychology (to assess the ability of visual differentia-tion as well as neglect phenomena of a visual half-field, e.g. for neglect diagnostics), competitive-orientedaptitude diagnostics.

Theoretical background:The signal detection theory (by Green and Swets,1966) describes the perception of weak signals on aconstantly changing (flickering) background. It is notlimited to visual differentiation of a certain type of sig-nals that are close to the perception threshold. It ismuch more general and deals with the question: Underwhich circumstances can a person detect a weaksignal surrounded by irrelevant signals that could beconfused with each other? This shows a strong link tothe statististical decision theory, as for the reaction"Signal exists" or "Signal does not exist" the sensibilityto differences is less important than the problem todecide for one of two possible answers with differentprobability to be correct.

Administration:The entire screen is covered with dots, some of whichrandomly disappear while other new ones appear. Therespondent is required to detect the critical stimulusconstellation, that is, whenever four dots form asquare.

Test forms:S1: Standard (white signals on a black background)S2: Standard, inverted (black signals on a white back-ground)S3: Short signal durationS4: Signal-balance (neglect diagnosis).

Scoring:The main variables calculated are the sum of correct,delayed, and incorrect reactions as a measurement forthe reliability of the detection process, and the medianof the detection time as a measure of the speed of thedetection process.

Additional part of the test protocol: quadrant scoring(including cut-off scores or distribution sections foraverage performances).

Reliability:Depending on the test form and comparative sample,coefficients of rtt=.74 to rtt=.85 were calculated as split-half reliabilities (odd-even-method) for the norm vari-able “Number correct and delayed“. The reliability forthe Median of the detection times calculated accordingto the same rules resulted in values varying betweenrtt=.78 and rtt=.84.

Validity:Construct validity can be assumed, as – according tothe signal detection theory - exactly those aspects ofperformance are registered that are considered criteriafor the construct signal detection. Studies with extremegroup samples also showed good results.

Norms/Comparative samples:The individual test forms are provided with norms (T-scores and percentile ranks with confidence intervalseach) of the following comparative samples:S1: Normal people selected according to age groups(n=738)Traffic psychological clients - Portuguese norms cate-gorized according to age gender and education level(n=2589)S2: Adolescents aged 14 years and over (n=76), Nor-mal people selected according to age, gender, andeducation level (n=196)S3: Adults selected according to age (n=904)S4: Neurological patients (n=71).

Testing time:14-20 minutes.

20

Tests2.16 DAUF Continuous

AttentionTest to assess the quantification of the attentionperformance

G. Schuhfried


The simplified but efficient design of the itemsmakes it possible to assess the individual long-term attention without disadvantaging respon-dents with a weaker performance.

Application:Assessment of the long-term selective attention andconcentration ability, general performance andcommitment; applicable for people over 15 years.

Main areas of application: clinical psychology, occupationaland organization psychology, medicine and pharmacology,aviation psychology, neuropsychology, traffic psychology,performance-oriented aptitude diagnostics.

Theoretical background:From the beginning, attention has always been a basic termin scientific psychology. However, until today psychologistshave not succeed completely in separating the variousaspects and findings related to attention and integrate theminto an established theory at a time. According to a mini-mum definition, attention is a selection process: perceptionand imagination are focused and aimed at a part of thestimuli confronting a person simultaneously. The aspectcon-tinuous emphasizes that sustaining one’s attentionbecomes more demanding when the task is repeated.Unlike vigilance, continuous attention is defined as selectiveawareness of stimuli that are either presented always ormost of the time. Vigilance, on the other hand, requires aperson to react to randomly presented stimuli just few timesover a longer period of time.For the measurement of continuous attention, the mainaspects that are assessed refer to a general ability or will-ingness to perform well. These aspects are largely inde-pendent of intelligence.

Administration:Rows of triangles are shown on the screen pointing eitherup or down. Whenever a pre-defined number of trianglespoints down, the respondent is required to press the reac-tion button.

Test forms:S1: Clinical form 1 (rows with 5 triangles and regular timeintervals)S2: Clinical form 2 (rows with 5 triangles and irregular timeintervals)S3: Normal form (rows with 7 triangles and irregular timeintervals)Forms S1 and S2 should only be applied to respondentswho are expected to have an impaired attention capacity.

Scoring:Standardized variables are the following:“Sum correct“ and “Sum incorrect“ as well as the meanof reaction times “Mean time correct“, ”Mean timeincorrect“ and the ”Distribution of reaction times“.The number of correct and incorrect answers indicatesthe accuracy of the respondent. A low number of cor-rect or a high number of incorrect reactions show im-paired concentration, low motivation, or a lack of un-derstanding of the task. In order to reveal changes inthe performance during the test run, additional meanvalues and distributions are recorded for time sections(so-called partial intervals).

Reliability:Depending on the test form and the comparative sample,coefficients for Cronbach‘s Alpha or for the split-half reliabil-ity were found varying between r=.76 and r=.98.

Validity:It is given in the sense of criterion validity. Continuousattention is a psychological construct, which is consid-ered an ability that is relatively independent of theintelligence level and is to be maintained over a periodof time. It can be ruled out that higher cognitive func-tions are required to take the test Continuous Attentionsuccessfully. The test reveals the stability of a per-son’s long-term attention performance as a basis forproving cognitive abilities under time pressure.

Norms/Comparative samples:Norms based on T-scores and percentile ranges(partly with confidence intervals) are available for alltest forms. For test form S1 there are also overallnorms and gender-specific norms of adults available(n=297), as well as norms of neurological patients(n=369). Test form S2 was standardized with a sampleof normal persons (n=111). In addition, the test resultscan be compared to a sample of Portuguese IEFPclients (=job seekers, n=388). Test form S3 comprisessamples of adults (n=568).

Testing time:S1, S2 (clinical forms): 20 minutes; S3 (standardform): 35 minutes.

21

Tests2.17 COG CognitroneGeneral Performance Test for the assessment of at-tention and concentration

G. Schuhfried


Measurement of attention and concentration undervalidity of the Rasch model. Numerous validationstudies prove the construct- and criterion validity.

Application:Assessment of attention and concentration through thecomparison of figures concerning their congruence;depending on the test form. Presentation is possibleas of 4 years of age.

Main areas of application: organizational psychology,aptitude diagnostics in the performance area, clinicalpsychology, neuropsychology, traffic psychology, flightpsychology, sport psychology, psychopharmacology.

Theoretical background:Cognitrone is based on the Reulecke's theoreticalmodel, which sees concentration as a state that is es-sentially described by three variables: 1. Energy: Theconcentrative state is exhausting and uses up energy.2. Function: Which function does concentration have inthe mastering of tasks? 3. Precision: The quality of themastering of tasks. In test forms with unlimited workingtime the variable Energy sensu Reilecke (1991) isrecorded via the time needed for a predeterminedprecision and function.

Administration:Either the work panel or the computer keyboard servesas input medium. An animated instruction phase andan error-sensitive practice phase introduce into thetask at hand. In test forms with unlimited working timeit is the task of the respondent, to compare an abstractfigure with the model, and assess its identity. After theanswer was entered, the next task follows automati-cally. Skipping a task, going back to a previous task orcorrecting a task is not possible. For test forms withfixed working time a reaction is only required, if a fig-ure is identical to the model. At the end of the presen-tation time the next tasks follows automatically. Skip-ping a task or going back to a previous task is notpossible.

Test forms:Six test forms with unlimited working time (S1-S3, S7-S9) and three test forms (S4-S6) with a fixed workingtime of 1.8 sec. are available. The test forms S1/S4,S2/S5 and S3/S6 contain the same stimulus material.The 3 groups differ by the complexity of the patterns.Test forms S7 contains greatly reduced stimulus mate-rial. The figure from a task field has only to be com-pared with one figure in one of the display fields. S8and S9 contain very simple constant stimulus material,S8 being slightly more difficult. Additionally both testforms are limited to seven minutes.

Scoring:Main variable of test form S1-S3, S7"Mean time true rejections" (sec)Main variables of test form S4-S6"Sum correct reactions""Sum incorrect reactions"Main variables of test form S8-S9"Sum hits" (correct and incorrect reactions)"Percentage incorrect reactions".

Reliability:The reliabilities are generally very high and are mostlyabove r=.95.

Validity:A great number of studies on different validity con-cepts are available (content validity, convergent ordiscriminant validity, construct validity and criterionvalidity) and they all show that the test is valid.

Norms/Comparative samples:S1: Currently the data of n=788 healthy people areavailable. Apart from this sample there are also normsof n=1218 problem drivers and n=240 children.S2: For this form there are norms of n=221 healthypeople. Apart from these norms there are the norms ofn=370 people of traffic-psychological clientel fromPortugal. There also are norms of n=115 Portugueseair traffic controllers.S4: Currently the norms of n=530 adults and n=410job seekers are available.S6: Currently there are norms of pilot candidates(n=284 adolescents) available. Additionally there arenorms of n=194 pilots from Portugal.S7: Currently comparative data of n=75 children, re-corded in primary schools of the city of Vienna areavailable.S8 and S9: There are representative norm samples ofthe sizes n=193 and n=281.

Testing time:Between 10 and 20 minutes.

22

Tests2.18 APM Raven’s Advanced

Progressive MatricesNon-verbal Intelligence Test

Test: John C. RavenManual: John C. Raven, J. H. Court andJ. Raven


For years the Progressive Matrices have played animportant role as an instrument to assess non-verbal intelligence and especially logical reason-ing. Comprehensive standardizations and valida-tion studies have been conducted all over theworld.

Application:Non-verbal assessment of general intelligance for per-formances above average, based on eductive thinking;applicable to persons ages 12 years and over.

Main areas of application: performance-oriented aptitudediagnostics, decision about school, college, and career,traffic psychology, industrial and organizational psychol-ogy, clinical psychology, aviation psychology, sportspsychology.

Theoretical background:The extensive administration of the Raven StandardProgressive Matrices (SPM) resulted in a demand for ashort screening form, as well as for a test to assess theupper 25% of the cognitive capacity range. The Ad-vanced Progressive Matrices were developed, to meetthese demands. The APM consists of some exercises(Set I with 12 items), that can also be used for screening,and a second set (II) with 36 items to assess this areamore thoroughly. As with all Raven Matrices Tests, theAPM also assesses the ability to detect a certain order ina chaos, or the meaning of an appearently randomlycompiled elements, i.e. the eductive ability (the wordeductive comes from the Latin word educere: deduce).As perception in general is a process of understandingthat includes the capacity to find a structure in a chaos,Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) can be consideredto assess logical reasoning and recognition. Spearmanand other psychologists agree that the general factor (g-factor) assessed in most intelligence tests consists of twomain components, eductive and reproductive abilities.From this point of view, the RPM measures one of themost basic human abilities.

Administration:After an instruction phase, the items are presented ac-cording to difficulty level. The respondent selects one outof eight answers with the light pen, the mouse, the touch-screen or the computer keyboard. S/he can correct theselected answer and can return to the previous item. It isalso possible to omit items, which are represented againafter the last item has been responded to. This version ofthe RPM can be administered without any time limit, justlike the paper-and-pencil version.

Test forms:There are 5 test forms available. S1 (Set I + II) and S5(Set II) with time limit, S2 (Set I + II), S3 (Set I), and S4(Set II) without time limit.

Scoring:The following variables are scored:“Number of correct“ for set I and set II“.The test protocol indicates each individual answer as wellas the time needed to respond.

Reliability:In a summary, the test authors indicate consistency coef-ficients between r=.83 and r=.87. The retest-reliabilityamounts to rtt=.91 (interval of 6-8 weeks).

Validity:The current APM manual includes a detailed discussionabout the issue validity. Among other things, it describesthe influence of the eductive capacity on the effectivenessof performances demanded in social and professionalfields. It also includes rather conventional studies thatdocument the correlations of the APM scores with certainabilities to achieve a job position or to keep it. In addition,correlations with differentiated performances of studentsas well as with specific occupational groups are pointedout.

Norms/Comparative samples:A wide range of norms derived from the paper-and-pencilversion are available if so desired. Various studiesshowed that the paper-and-pencil and the computerizedversion yield the same results.

Testing time:S1: 25 - 50 minutes, S2: 25 - 60 minutes, S3: 7 - 15minutes, S4: 20-50 minutes, S5: 20-40 minutes.

23

Tests2.19 AMT Adaptive Matrices

TestAdaptive test to assess non-verbal general intelli-gence

Lutz F. Hornke, Stefan Etzel and Klaus Rettig


The relation between test length and measure-ment precision is optimized. The AMT requiresless items than most non-verbal intelligencetests for accurate calculations.

Application:This test is a non-verbal assessment of the generalintelligence based on deductive thinking, and is thusmainly independent of cultural and social back-grounds; it can be applied to persons aged 15 yearsand older.

Main areas of application: performance-oriented apti-tude diagnostics, decisions about school, college, andcareer, traffic psychology, industrial and organizationalpsychology, aviation psychology, sports psychology.

Theoretical background:The items resemble classical matrices, but they arebased on explicit construction rules. Altogether, almost300 items were created on the basis of these rules andthey were evaluated with a large sample of persons inan extensive study in Aachen (Germany), Katowice(Poland), Moscow (Russia), and Vienna (Austria).Probabilistic characteristic values were estimated forthe items. The resulting item pool now allows for anadaptive test presentation with all advantages of mod-ern computerized diagnostics: shorter administrationtime but improved measurement precision, and highlymotivated respondents due to a selection of tasks thatare adequate for each individual person taking thistest.

Administration:The entry of answers is adaptive. It is not possible toomit an item or to return to the last one. The 9 answeroptions are designed to reduce guesses.

Test forms:There are three test forms with differing precision asregards the person’s parameter estimation (PAR). Theestimation error in test form S1 is adjusted to 0.7, inS2 to 0.6, and in S3 it is 0.5. The screening allows fora quick overview when this does not have any furtherconsequences for the person taking the test (e.g. instudies where general intelligence is also assessed asa control factor). The long form should only be admin-istered in special cases, when increased measurementprecision is of great importance (e.g. for court as-sessments). The increase of measurement precision(=reduction of the estimation error) obviously prolongsthe administration time.

Scoring:The person’s parameter of the variable “General Intel-ligence“ is calculated as the test value.

Reliability:Reliability is given in the sense of internal consistencysince this test complies with the testing theoreticalmodel by Rasch. It was adjusted accordingly for thethree different forms S1-S3 of the AMT, based on auniform variance (CritSEM = 0.63, 0.44, 0.39; corre-sponding to reliabilities of .60, .80, .85), and applies toall persons taking the test, and in all scale levels. Thisis the main and decisive advantage compared to otherconventional psychometrical tests following the classictesting theory: All respondents are assessed withequal reliability!

Validity:This test provides content validity for “Reasoning”according to Thurstone.

Norms/Comparative samples:Norms are available resulting from n=1356 persons(580 men, 776 women) aged between 15 and 77years. The norms were compiled in Katowice (Poland),Moscow (Russia), and Vienna (Austria).

Testing time:Depending on the adjusted measurement precision,the testing time (without instruction) takes between 15and 45 minutes. Experiences show that the instructiontakes about 5-10 additional minutes.

24

Tests2.20 VISGED Visual Memory

TestAdaptive test to assess the visual memory

Stefan Etzel and Lutz F. Hornke


The adaptive presentation provides that everyrespondent is required to complete just as manytasks as necessary. The respondents are onlyconfronted with those tasks that correspond totheirperformance level. This is to avoid overstrain orunder-stimulation.

Application:The perception and recall of visual information (memo-rizing and recalling the positions of symbols on a map)is used to determine the capacity of the visual mem-ory.

Main areas of application: performance-oriented apti-tude diagnostics, decisions regarding school, college,and career, aviation psychology, research.

Theoretical background:The test items based on an explicitly designed con-struct assess the capacity of the visual memory whichalso plays an important role in the orientation process:the development of a so-called “knowledge of how toremember characteristic marks”. The design of the testitems mainly follows the “Theory of visual imagination“by Kosslyn (1980), and the ”Model of integrative infor-mation processing“ by Hänggi (1989).

Administration:The respondent sees a city map on the screen, whichindicates typical sites marked with symbols. S/he isasked to memorize the individual positions of the sym-bols and to recall them subsequently. This is done bypresenting the map again, but without the symbols,and by asking the respondent to mark the positionwhere s/he thinks the symbol was before. Immediatelyafter the respondent has marked the supposed posi-tion in the map, the real location appears to givehim/her feedback on the performance. The individualitems vary with respect to number and arrangement ofthe symbols.

Test forms:There are three test forms. Their difference is theprecision with which the respondent’s parameters(PAR) are estimated.The screening form is recommended to obtain a quickoverview when there are no real consequences for therespondent (e.g. in the framework of studies that as-certain visual memory as an additional control factor).The long form should only be administered in specificexperiments, which require a particularly high meas-urement precision (e.g. court report). The increased

measurement precision (=decreased number of errorscaused by estimation) certainly extends the testingtime.

Scoring:The respondent’s parameters as well as a norm com-parison (percentile ranks) with the variable ”Visualmemory performance“ are indicated.

Reliability:All items correspond to the criteria of the probabilistictesting theory and thus provably measure the sameaspect. Since the item presentation is adaptive, themeasurement precision for each performance level isoptimized. That way the desired measurement preci-sion can be achieved with a significantly smaller num-ber of items.The reliability in test form S1 is .64, in test form S2 it is.75, and in S3 .84.

Validity:The fact that the items are based on a theoreticallyde-duced construct design contributes to the constructvalidity of the test. To support the ecological validity,the items were embedded into a realistic scenario.This was done by using all the specific possibilitiesprovided by a computer to design innovative item andanswer structures.

Norms/Comparative samples:A parameter according to Rasch is indicated, which isindependent of the sample and depicts the perform-ance of a respondent. In addition, norms of a sampleof students (n=590) are available at the moment.

Testing time:The testing time varies - depending on the number ofthe items to be completed - between 10 and 15 min-utes.

25

Tests2.21 ZBA Time-Movement

AnticipationTest to estimate speed

Herbert Bauer, Giselher Guttmann, Michael Trimmel,Michael Leodolter and Ulrich Leodolter

© Dr.G.Schuhfried GmbH

Novel test for the appraisal of the ability tomeasure speed and movement in space. Thisability is especially relevant in traffic psychology.

Application:Estimate of speed and movement of objects in space.

Main areas of application: Traffic psychology, flightpsychology, health psychology (especially sport psy-chology).

Theoretical background:A function that is very important in traffic psychology, isthe extent to which a person can get the feel of amovement and can correctly estimate the movement ofobjects in space.The experiment of moving objects in certain trajecto-ries while executing an eye-movement analysis wasterminated, due to experiences with eye-movementanalyses.

Administration:A green dot appears on the monitor, moving slowly.Then it disappears without warning and two red linesappear. One of them is at the place where the greendot just disappeared. The other one is the target line,which the dot has to reach. The respondent must statewhen the dot has reached the target line. For this therespondent presses on a key, when s/he thinks that thedot should have reached the second line. Then thelocation is marked with an arrow, where it should haveappeared. In the instruction phase, the respondentreceives feedback on the actual location of the dot atthe time the key was pressed. During the test phase,this feedback is not given. The difficulty of the tasks isvaried in the following way: First simple linear move-ments take place. Then curved linear trajectories fol-low. They are replaced by sine-waves, that are firstconstant, and later amplitude modulated, frequencymodulated and frequency amplitude modulated.

Test forms:There is a long form (S1) with 48 items, a short form(S2) with 12 Items, a linear form (S3) with 8 items, anda linear form for time estimation only (S4) with 30items.

Scoring:"Time anticipation": the time error is recorded as timedifference in milliseconds."Motion anticipation": the location error is recorded asdeviation from the correct target in pixels. For a de

tailed analysis of the individual items a representationof the progression is available.

Reliability:The reliabilities (inner consistency) calculated for timeanticipation are: "Median deviation time (total):" r=.98;"Median deviation time during a linear progression”:r=.92; "Median deviation time during a complex pro-gression”: r=.98; "Median deviation time during a sine-wave progression": r=.92.Motion anticipation: "Median direction deviation total":r=.76; "Median direction deviation during a linear pro-gression": r=.69; "Median direction deviation during acomplex progression”: r=.72; "Median direction devia-tion during a sine-wave progression": r=.62.

Validity:Currently there are validity studies available for a pre-cursor of this test. What becomes clear from the resultsof an evaluation study using a driving test, is that over-estimating distances is more problematic than under-estimating them. An evaluation of the test is currentlyunder way.

Norms/Comparative samples:There is one norm for the test with a sample of n=271.

Testing time:About 10 minutes (for the short form).

26

Tests

2.22 PP Peripheral PerceptionTest to assess peripheral perception during trackingtasks

Gernot Schuhfried, Jörg Prieler and Werner Bauer


An ultra-wave rangefinder is a standard in theadministration of this test, which measures con-stantly the distance between the head of the re-spondent and the screen. This made possible forthe first time to indicate the results of the visualfield directly in degrees (and not to deduce therange of the visual field indirectly from the reactiontimes).

Application:This test was designed to assess the perception andprocessing of peripheral visual information.

Main areas of application: traffic psychology, medicine+ pharmacology, aviation psychology, sports psychol-ogy, industrial and organizational psychology.

Theoretical background:For many activities conducted by humans and ma-chines together, such as steering a motor vehicle, agood visual perception is indispensable. A driver per-ceives over a 90% of information via the visual chan-nel.Literature about visual aspects of driving usually men-tions peripheral visual perception in connection withthree functions:1. Speed estimation (high angular velocity in the peri-

pheral visual field).2. Steering a car (through objects that pass by at the

sides of the road).3. Observance of the surroundings (by detecting

incidents and objects, e.g. cars turning in from an-other road, or passing). The PP made possible toachieve the goal of designing a behavior-relatedinstrument that meets high methodical demands.

Administration:Light stimuli - produced with the light emitting diodesmounted onto the device – move along with a pre-setspeed (in regular ”jumps“). Critical stimuli appear inpre-set time intervals (targets), to which the respon-dent has to react by pressing the foot pedal.


Scoring:The following variables are recorded:- Field of vision- Visual angles left/right- Tracking deviation- Hits left/right

- Incorrect reactions- Omitted reactions- Median reaction time (left/right stimuli)

Reliability:Studies to prove the reliability of this test have not yetbeen conducted.

Validity:Context-logical validity or a high self-evident validitycan be assumed. Relevant stimuli (=critical stimuli) arepresented in the visual field of the respondent - suchas for instance in road traffic - to which s/he has toreact as quickly as possible.

Norms/Comparative samples:A standardization of the test does not seem reason-able, as literature indicates clear limits (in degrees) ofthe normal visual field (especially in traffic psychol-ogy). The German traffic psychology laws (GermanDriving Permit Regulation, 1998) state that a visualfield covering 120 degrees (140 degrees in profes-sional drivers; at least 70 degrees to the left and to theright) is the minimum necessary to drive a motor vehi-cle. Thus any reduction in the visual field seems to beproblematic.


27

Tests2.23 TQ Creating your own

questionnaire test usingthe Test Generator

Dr. G. Schuhfried GmbH

Test creation:The Test Generator provides two test models for cre-ating questionnaire tests:

a. Power testsThis test category has the following characteristicproperties:• Every test item has a correct solution which the

subject has to find.• Items can also be omitted (i.e. the respondent can

switch to the next item without entering a responsefor the current one).

• Next has to be clicked to call up the next item.• Items which have already been answered can be

called up again any number of times (possibly withina specified time limit) in order to complete or correctthem.

• If a time limit is specified and the test does not con-tain more than 46 items, it is also possible to switchto any test item desired after the last test item is an-swered.

• The header always shows the items which were notyet answered.

• The subject can select the answer in a multiple-choice procedure or enter it as a number via a (vir-tual) numerical keypad. You can determine the de-sired response model during test creation.

b. Personality testsThis test category has the following characteristicproperties:• There are generally no correct or incorrect answers.• All items have to be answered. It is not possible to

switch to the next item unless the current item is an-swered. This ensures a reliable evaluation.

• The program automatically switches to the next itemafter an answer is entered.

• It is only possible to correct the previous item once.• The only answer model available is multiple-choice.

Scoring:Any number of test variables with any desired descrip-tions can be defined for scoring. Variables are calcu-lated by counting out items assigned via a scoring keyor via sum or mean calculations from other test vari-ables. In personality tests every answer given by thesubject can also be assigned to several test variables.The test results can be issued in the form of resulttables, profiles and test protocols (answer, evaluationand working time).

28

Tests2.24 GESTA Gestalt

Perception TestTest to assess the field dependence

Andreas Hergovich and Helmut Hörndler


A Rasch-homogenous test based on the hierarchicmodel perception to assess the construct fielddependence.

Application:Assessment of the cognitive style of field(in)dependence (field articulation) by identifying aspecific shape integrated into a pattern.Main areas of application: industrial and organizationalpsychology, personality-based aptitude diagnostics,clinical psychology.

Theoretical background:The GESTA is based on the concept of field depend-ence. The typology differentiates between field de-pendent and field independent people. Field depend-ent are people who are influenced by their perceptionof surrounding stimuli so that they always perceivetaking into account the surrounding ”field“. Apart fromthe perception, it is also the entire “mental apparatus”that is affected by this dependence on the “field“ (andthus also cognitions and emotions). The concept of thefield dependence was developed in four phases. Thefirst tests were based on the theory by Witkin & Asch(1948). The first phase encompassed the classic testfor the assessment of the field dependence, the Rod-and-Frame-Test (RFT; Witkin, 1949). During the sec-ond phase of the construct, the test most applied toassess field dependence was developed: the Embed-ded-Figures-Test (EFT; Witkin et al, 1971).The GESTA was developed on the basis of the hierar-chic model perception. The aim is to assess the abilityof disassembling and assembling structures. Duringthe development of the test, the main goal was todesign a test that was one-dimensional in the sense ofmodern testing theory and assessed the construct fielddependence.

Administration:The task is to identify a pre-defined shape (in form of ahouse) in a pattern, and to mark the corners of thehouse with the mouse as if redrawing them. The testcomprises 30 items that vary as regards the sur-rounding pattern. However, it is not a jungle of linesbut some more or less well-shaped forms. The rele-vant shape (the house) is presented for each item atthe side to serve as a model. The respondent has 20seconds per item to find the solution. An item is con-sidered as solved as soon as the house was drawncorrectly within the preset time limit (with marked cor-ners in the correct order). A relatively intensive in-struction and practice phase precedes the testingphase.

Test forms:There is only one test form.

Scoring:The test value is the number of solved items.

Reliability:The internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) on thedifferent samples varies between r=.89 and r=.95. Thesplit-half-reliabilities are high, too. They are situatedbetween r=83 and r=.94.

Validity:From the point of view of the probabilistic testing the-ory, reliability can be considered as given since allitems measure the same dimension. Results revealingconvergent validity proved to be especially important.The study by Hergovich and Kriechbaum (1996)showed that the correlations between the subtest“Analyze and synthesize“ of the AID and the GESTAamount to r=.66. The correlations between the EFTand GESTA is situated at r=.51. Furthermore it wasshown that the two tests EFT and GESTA revealedsimilar correlations with other variables that had beenexamined (extroversion, social acceptance or intelli-gence).

Norms/Comparative samples:Norms of a representative age-based sample of nor-mal people with a volume of n=262 are available. Thedata were compiled in the year 2002 in the laboratoryof Dr. G. Schuhfried.


29

Tests2.25 B19 Double Labyrinth

TestTest to assess the eye-hand coordination

R. Bonnardel


The Double Labyrinth Test makes possible areliable assessment of visuomotor coordination intasks of a pre-set speed.

Application:Assessment of the eye-hand coordination ability intask of pre-determined speed.

Main areas of application: traffic psychology, diagnos-tics of motor abilities, sports psychology.

Theoretical background:This test is an enhanced version of the test “Le test dudouble labyrinthe“ by Bonnardel, which is a standardtest in the traffic psychology in France. The originaltest was an instrument made of a cylinder, which ro-tated at a constant speed. The respondent had tomaintain two markings in the middle of the track bymeans of twolevers. Each time a marking touched the side of thetrack was counted as an error.The course of the track becomes gradually more diffi-cult and requires constantly adjusted movements. Thetest assesses speed and as well as the reaction toadjust the movements to the track. Up to now, theDouble Labyrinth Tests is the only one among variouspsychomotor tests to form a synthesis of the factorscoordination, precision in adjusting the movements tothe track, and focused attention, taking into accountthe capacity of sustained visual perception.

Administration:The respondent is required to maintain to circles on atrack by means of two control knobs. The left knob isto steer the left circle, the right knob for the right circle.The respondent is informed to make sure that thecircles do not touch the edges of the track. If this is thecase, the respondent has to adjust the position of thecircle accordingly with the respective control knob.After a practice phase of 40 seconds, the test phasestarts and takes 2 minutes and 45 seconds.

Test forms:There is one test form that takes 2 minutes and 45seconds.

Scoring:The following variables are being recorded:-Number of mistakes-Length of mistakes-Length of mistakes in percent-Number of mistakes – left hand-Length of mistakes – left hand-Length of mistakes in percent – left hand

-Number of mistakes – right hand-Length of mistakes – right hand-Length of mistakes in percent – right hand-An optional depiction of the course of the test ispossible.

Reliability:The present reliabilities (internal consistency) amountto 0.96 for the “Length of mistakes“ and 0.80 for the“Number of mistakes”. Furthermore there are alsoseparately recorded reliability coefficients available forthe left hand and the right hand.

Validity:A validation study for the computerized version of theB19 showed significant correlations between the tests2HAND and B19. Thus the test can be considered toprovide a convergent validity.

Norms/Comparative samples:Norms of a representative comparative sample(n=279) are available.


30

Tests2.26 EPP6 Eysenck-

Personality-Profiler-V6Multi-dimensional personality questionnaire for use inpersonnel counseling.

H. Eysenck, G. D. Wilson & C. J. Jackson

Dr. G. Schuhfried GmbH

This test provides a reliable assessment of thethree personality factors extroversion, emotional-ity, and adventurousness according to Eysenck.One of the remarking features of this test is thehighly stable structure of it’s factors throughoutthe various cultural backgrounds.

Application:Multi-dimensional modular personality inventors for theassessment of the three dimensions extroversion,emotionality, and adventurousness according toEysenck.

Main areas of application: aptitude testing regardingpersonality traits, occupational and organizationalpsychology, traffic psychology, aviation psychology,sports psychology, clinical psychology, and healthpsychology.

Theoretical background:EPP6 is a multi-dimensional questionnaire based onEysenck’s personality theory. Due to the model's largebandwidth Eysenck’s factors Extraversion, Neuroti-cisms and Psychoticism fit well into the overlappingorder structure of the "Five-factor model". These uni-versal factors allow a more specific view. Personalityfeatures, however, did not become obsolete but aremeant to be enhanced by them. The three dimensionsmentioned in EPP6, namely Extraversion, Emotionality(Neuroticism) and Adventure (Psychoticism) prove thistheory and summarize the values of seven sub scaleseach. Furthermore, the questionnaire was added withan openness scale.

Administration:After a general instruction the test items are presentedone after the other. The respondent enters his/heranswers on a three-step scale. (yes, no, can’t decide).After one item was answered the next appears in-stantly. Previous items can be corrected.

Test forms:Long form S1 consists of 440 items, each consisting of21 sub scales, the short form S2 consists of 200 items,each consisting of 9 sub scales.

Scoring:The raw scores for all sub scales, openness scale andthe number of the "Can’t decide" answers are regis-tered. The raw scores for the three dimensions arecalculated out of the supplied respective scales.

Reliability:Reliability values (internal consistency) of the S1 testform show results from. 56 (though mindedness) to .85(inferiority, unhappiness) with men and from .41(though mindedness) to .89 (unhappiness) withwomen. The S2 test form show results from .68 (irre-sponsibility) to .89 (unhappiness) with women andfrom 74 (assertiveness) to .85 (unhappiness) withmen.

Validity:Factor-analytical research reveals a distinct three-factor structure. The emotionality factor explains 27.2%, the adventure factor 17.9%, and the extraversionfactor 10.1% (cumulative 55.1%) of the variance.Eysenck, Barrett, Wilson & Jackson (1992) and Costa &McCrae (1995) had been able to reproduce thesefindings. Costa & McCrae (1995) further provide somealternative factorial solutions which are especiallyinteresting in regard to the five-factor-theory. The fac-torial validity of the EPP6 further holds across differentcultures and age groups with a highly equivalent factorstructure among these different samples. (Eysenck,Wilson & Jackson, 2000).

Norms/Comparative samples:For all sub-scales and dimensions, norms are indi-cated in percentages and T-scores. The EPP6 paper-and-pencil version’s calibration sample was used withan overall sample of n=1394.

Testing time:Long form S1: 55 minutes.Short form S2: 20 minutes.

31

RehaCom3 Sport Training - RehaCom

Progress in computer technology makes possible the application of computer training pro-grams in sport psychology.

In the beginning, training programs were similar to psychodiagnostic procedures. But verysoon it was clear that the demands of a training program are different from those of a test. Theaim of computerized training procedures is to improve especially the cognitive abilities of theclient.To achieve such improvements the following requirements should be fulfilled.

ModularityStarting with basic training, the difficulty of the trainingincreases as much as the performance of the client im-proves.

Adaptation and individualisationComputerized presentation and guidance enables to cre-ate a tailored training for each client. The training pro-grams selected can cover various dimensions. Each pro-gram consists of several levels of difficulty with a suffi-cient item pool to make sure that a client works only ontasks corresponding to his/her current abilities.

Continuity and case controlContinuity means that results of all training sessions are stored and a new session startswhere the former one has stopped. When the results of all sessions are stored, it is possible toobserve the client’s progress and to adapt the training and the interim aims to his/her perform-ance.

Confirmation/feedbackDuring the training the patient receives information about the quality of his/her performance bymeans of simple depictions on the monitor or by audible signals. This information is either aconstant or item-related feedback which can be positive or negative.

32

Trainings3.1 KONS Visuoconstructive

Abilities

Short descriptionThis program trains visual reconstruction of con-crete pictures. The patient has to memorize a dis-played picture in every detail. Then - after it hasbeen taken apart into several puzzle parts - thepatient has to reassemble it.

IndicationsSpecialist literature reports that parietal lesions causeconstructional apraxia. The abilities necessary to ma-nage the tasks of this training are reconstruction aswell as both memory and attention. The training isrecommended for patients with a slight or mediumdecline in the capacity of the visuo-constructive field orin other general functional disorders. The latter can befrequently observed in patients with diffuse brain da-mage e.g. due to intoxication, alcohol abuse, etc. Asonly pictorial material is used, the training is also sui-table for children (aged 8 years and over).

Basic requirements of the patientThe training is too demanding for patients with strongapraxia, amnesia, and concentration disorders.

TaskThe training is analogous to puzzle games. At thebeginning of the task, the patient has to memorize asmany details as possible. As soon as the patient pres-ses the OK-button - or after a pre-set time - the pictureis taken apart into a certain number of puzzle partsand must be reassembled.

Training materialThe pictures are scanned and appear in very highresolution (256 color mode) on the screen. The depictfor example houses, faces, paintings, and landscapes.

Levels of difficultyAltogether 18 levels of difficulty have been elaborated.The main component for the different levels of difficultyis the number of puzzle parts into which the picture istaken apart (4-36 parts). Starting with level 10, theparts are turned around.

EffectivenessMany investigations of neuropsychological rehabilitati-on report good training effects of playing puzzle gamesregularly (often also combined with other trainings andexercises). It can be assumed that the results of theseinvestigations also apply to RehaCom, since itsstrucutre is analogous.

33

Trainings3.2 MEMO Topological

Memory

Short descriptionThis program trains the topological memory. Likein the game "memory", the patient should memori-ze the position of cards with pictures (e.g. of alion, a flower, a house, a car, etc.) or geometricfigures on them. When the cards are hidden thepatient should remember which picture was atwhat place.

IndicationsThis trainin is indicated for all memory disorders orimpairments regarding verbal and non-verbal contents.These amnestic syndromes can be observed for alldiffuse cerebro-organic diseases (dementia, intoxicati-on, chronic alcohol abuse, etc.) as well as for all left-sided or bilateral lesions of the medial or basolaterallimbic lemniscus. Moreover vascular diseases, braintraumata, or brain tumors in prefrontal, temporal up toparietal cortical areas can lead to memory deficits.

Basic requirements of the patientApart form understanding basic tasks, the patient alsoneeds to be able to handle the big buttons of theRehaCom.

TaskIn the so called "memorizing phase" a varying numberof cards (dependent on the level of difficulty) with con-crete pictures or geometric figures are displayed onthe screen. The patient should memorize the locationof the pictures. After a pre-set time - or manually bypressing the OK button - the pictures of the matrix arehidden (turned "upside down"). At the edge of thescreen a picture will be displayed, which is identical toone of the hidden pictures. Now the patient shouldindicate which of the hidden pictures corresponds to it.

Training materialFour pools, each consisting of 48 pictures (pictures ofconcrete objects, geometric figures and letters) areavailable. The number of simultaneously displayedpictures varies from 3 to a maximum of 16.

Levels of difficultyThere are 20 degrees of difficulty, which are definedby the number of cards and their complexity.

EffectivenessFor detailed information please refer to the section"Studies for effectiveness", especially to the studies ofREGEL & FRITSCH, LIEWALD, WENZELBURGER,BECKERS, HÖSCHEL, PREETZ, FRIEDL-FRANCESCONI, PUHR, PFLEGER and OTT-CHERVET.

34

Trainings

3.3 RAUM Spatial Operations

Short description

The following tasks train visual or spatial imagery:"Estimation of the position", "Estimation of theangle", "Estimation of the volume" and "Estimati-on of the size".

IndicationsThis program is designed to provide training of thebasic functions of spatial perception. Using non-verbalmaterial minimizes the demands on verbal compre-hension and enables the application to patients withspeech disorders.

Basic requirements of the patientBasic visual functions are the most complex cognitiveabilities. On the one hand these abilities require aminimum of attention, and on the other studies proveda high correlation between spatial operations andlogical reasoning. So this program should not be ad-ministered to patients with severe intellectual deficitsand/or with attention disorders.

Task and Training materialEstimation of the position: The screen is split into twoparts. In one of them, a sample object is displayed in afixed position. In the other, the same object is dis-played in a different position. The patient should usethe cursor keys of the RehaCom panel to move theobject to the identical position.

Estimation of the angle: Two angles are displayed. Byusing the cursor keys, the patient should adapt oneangle to the other.

Estimation of the volume: the patient has to fill gllassesor cups with a certain amount of liquid (1/2, 2/3, etc.).

Estimation of Size: Two objects of different size aredisplayed. The patient should use the cursor keys toadapt the size of the object to the sample object. Aone-dimensional and a two-dimensional version isavailable. Higher levels of difficulty also train short-term memory for visuo-spatial material: when patientsstart to work on the task the target object disappears.

Levels of difficultyThe program is adaptive, and each category has 9levels of difficulty. The instruction is designed as "lear-ning by doing".

EffectivenessInvestigation results for this training program are notavailable yet. However, good rehabilitation results canbe expected for the above mentioned indications,because patients train on their specific disorders.

35

Trainings3.4 VIGI Vigilance

Short description

The ability to maintain one's attention over a lon-ger period of time is trained in a training designedwith limited response time towards the items. Thetask of the patient is to monitor a conveyor beltand to select those objects that differ from thesample object in one or several details.

IndicationsThe training is indicated for all disorders or restrictedsustained attention of different etiology and genesis.

Basic requirements of the patientThe tasks in this training session are designed to bevery easy. Basic visual differentiation skills are requi-red from the patient.

TaskObjects are displayed on a conveyor belt which haveto be compared with one or several "sample objects".The patient should find those objects that are not iden-tical to the sample objects (="faulty" objects).

Training materialAccording to the parameter settings, concrete objects(e.g. a washing machine, a refrigerator, etc.) or ab-stract figures are displayed.

Levels of difficulty15 levels of difficulty are available. The higher thelevel, the more the level increases:

• the number of "faulty" objects,• the number of differing elements,• the number of displayed objects as well as

the complexity of the pictures.

EffectivenessFor detailed information please refer to the section"effectiveness studies ", in particular to the studies ofREGEL & FRITSCH, HÖSCHEL, PREETZ, BEK-KERS, FRIEDL-FRANCESCONI and OTT-CHERVET.

36

Trainings3.5 EXPL Exploration

Short descriptionThis training program deals with problems in vi-sual exploration i.e. dysfunction of the homony-mous visual field and neglect. The training con-sists of a slow serial search of objects that have tobe interpreted or analyzed precisely.

IndicationsThe training is recommended for patients with a ho-monymous restriction in their visual field, with pro-blems of visual exploration due to dysfunction of thevisual field or of neglect, with Balint syndrome, or acombination of several of these disorders resultingfrom brain damage. The training can also be used tohelp patients who suffer from linguistic restrictions andrestrictions in their ability to understand words, byincluding non-verbal material.

Basic requirements of the patientThe training program is less suitable for patients withheavily impaired vision. The patient must be able topress the large reaction keys on the RehaCom panel.Serious disturbances in memory (inability to rememberstrategies) limits the success of the training. It seemsthat children over 8 years can also be trained with thisprogram. However, this still has to be proven by mo-nitored studies.

TaskThe patient has to find certain objects on a dark back-ground with a circular cursor of equivalent size to the-se objects which moves across the screen. The ob-jects are arranged in lines and columns and the cursorscands one line after the other. This is how the explo-ration movement of the patient is controlled. And whe-never the cursor hits one of the relevant objects,he/she has to press the OK-button on the RehaCompanel.

Training materialThe objects which are used in the exploration trainingare - to mention a few - squares, triangles, circles,stars, etc.

Levels of difficultyThe exploration training program can be adapted tosuit up to 30 different levels of difficulty. The adaptati-on strategy includes the following parameters thatinfluences the difficulty: the number of the lines thathave to be explored as well as the distance betweenthem, the range of the exploration field (the numberand distance between the columns), the recognizabilityof the different symbols, the distances between thesymbols that have to be recognized and therefore thesize and clarity of the cursor and the variation of thesymbols. Another difference between the levels ofdifficulty is the speed of the cursor. The therapist candefine its speed by the parameters in the menu to suiteach individual patient.

EffectivenessThis program has only been available since 2002. Itstill needs to be checked thoroughly.

37

Biofeedback 2000

4 BiofeedbackPhysically most athletes are in top condition, the difference can be found in the mental status.In order to deliberately influence the mental strength we need to be aware of it.

Learning to deliberately influence bodily functions that we are usually not aware of, is a poten-tial that has become a gentle form of training with a promising future. Biofeedback 2000 en-ables you to conduct computerized modern and effective diagnostics and trainings.

Biofeedback 2000 consists of the physiorecorder and a software. The physiorecorder is a de-vice to measure, prepare and digitalize relevant physiological parameters. The software pres-ents these data on the screen, allows you to run specific training programs and has an effec-tive and flexible data management program.

A short description of the physiorecorder and the software:

4.1 Physiorecorder

Measured parametersEMG1, EMG2, SCL, SCR, TEMP1, FPG, RESP-1, RESPA-1, RSPT, RESP-2, RESPA-2,MOT, VOICE.

SensorsEDA electrode cable, EMG electrode cable, temperature sensor, finger pulse sensor, earpulse sensor, reflex pulse sensor, breathing belt, rectal electrode, vaginal electrode, motilitysensor, microphoneMulti-sensor (EDA, EMG, PULS).

38

Biofeedback 2000

4.2 Software

ProgramsBasic Modules (incl. standardised feedback), breathing exercises, EDA relaxation exercises,confrontation training by means of image sequences or video sequences, voice-recorder: tap-ing a (therapeutic) conversation, neuro-muscular rehabilitation, electromyography, blood cir-culation, activation screening, tolerance test, statistics module.

User friendlinessIt is possible to switch between the different channels during the session and to individually setthe scaling; the option session pre-selection allows for a specific setting of the display and themeasurement channel.Network compatible: data storage on central server and data exchange with other BFB2000Systems is possible without any problems.

FeedbackBar chart, Line graph, Morphing, Faces, Sun, additional visual stimulus presentations, depic-tion for children, audio tools, remote control of external devices (train, electronic puppy,…) .Some presentations can be set up individually.

Scientific toolsIntelligent data reduction program which prepares data for further processing in SPSS or Ex-cel.

Help fileComprehensive help file with e.g. basic principles of measurement theories, electrodes,physiological parameters, meaning of the measurement values, preparation of a Biofeedbacksession, theory of the Biofeedback therapy, aspects of the treatment, references.

39

BFB modules

4.3 Program modules

4.3.1 BFRESP – BREATHING

Sensors register thoracic and/or abdominal breathingand emit synchronized visual or acoustic signals asfeedback for the client.Special module: Breathing training according toDr. MarxThe training developed by Dr. Marx enables the clientto learn economically correct breathing with a prede-fined optimum breathing pattern. The computer analy-ses a client’s current breathing pattern and issues onethat would be ideal for him/her. The client learns to

optimize his/her breathing by comparing it with theideal pattern.

Areas of application:Relaxation training: Breathing training is especiallysuited for relaxation. The client receives audible and/orvisible feedback on his/her breathing pattern.Essential hypertension: In many clients sufferingfrom essential hypertension, a reduced exhaling phasecan be observed. Therefore a breathing training isespecially recommended for this indication.

4.3.2 BFEDA – Skin conductance

The aim is to influence one’s habitual arousal or sym-pathetic nerve activity on the basis of constant skinconductance feedback. This is done by means of theinterrelation between classical visual or acoustic feed-back and one’s bodily reactions.Special modules:Mimic: The client is supposed to get the face onscreen to start smiling by relaxing him/herself.Morphing: When the skin conductance level is re-duced, e.g. a caterpillar is transformed into a butterfly.

Depiction for children: this feature shows changes ofthe SCL in forms suitable for children.Audio feedback: the client is supposed to reducesound frequency with his/her eyes closed: the lowerthe sound, the lower the sympathetic nerve activation.Music from CD or the hard disk can additionally beused to increase relaxation.

Areas of application:Relaxation training and stress relief: Feedback fromthe skin conductance level is used to reduce one’shabitual arousal or sympathetic nerve activity.

4.3.3 BFKON – Confrontation training

and

4.3.4 BFVID – Confrontation training with Video clips

Phobic pictures or video clips are presented on screenduring the session. This causes anxieties or arousal.The client who observes his/her autonomous nervesystem’s’ reflexes under extreme conditions can try tocontrol them.It is also possible to systematically eliminate a client’ssensitivity by arranging the material according to its

intensity of anxiety or arousal induction.

Areas of application:PhobiasPanic attacksAnxiety disorders

4.3.5 BFREC – Voice recorder

During a therapeutical conversation (anamnesis explo-ration), this conversation is recorded apart from thephysiological parameters. The therapist can then ana-

lyze those issues after the session, which caused anincreased reaction from the autonomous nerve sys-tem.Areas of application:Psychotherapy

40

BFB modules

4.3.6 BFMUSK – Neuromuscular rehabilitation, neuromuscular training

The client is asked to follow a pre-defined pattern bycontracting the corresponding muscle groups. Thisresults on the one hand in higher control over themuscles, and on the other in building up a specifiedmuscle group.The muscle Biofeedback is mostly applied for thetreatment of peripheral pareses, dysfunctions of themotor apparatus (as a rehabilitation measure), spaso-

dic torticollis, and headache with radicular symptoms.

Areas of application:Incontinence: the pelvic floor muscle EMG is meas-ured via a vaginal electrode. Due to a specified train-ing consisting of contracting and relaxing phases, thismusculature is gradually strengthened and the symp-toms are reduced.

4.3.7 BFEMG – Electro-myography

The EMG Biofeedback measures the muscle tone viaelectrodes. The client is instructed to actively influencemuscle tension. When she/he relaxes the muscles,e.g. the audio signal fades; an animated image on thecomputer monitor changes while the values on thedisplay decrease. On the other hand, tense musclesresult in the audio signal becoming louder and un-pleasant, the computer animation adapts to the signal,and the values increase.

Areas of application:EMG Relaxation training: A reduction of muscle toneis accompanied by increased sympathetic nerve activ-ity. Therefore this training is applied for general re-laxation.Cervical syndrome: the aim of the training is to re-duce muscle tone in the M. Trapezius and/or to de-crease the difference between the tone on the left andright side.Tension headache: the emphasis is also laid on areduction of muscle tone. However, the electrode isplaced on the forehead (M. Frontalis).Backache: Two EMG channels are used. The elec-

trodes are placed to the left and to the right of thespine right where the muscular tenseness or pain islocated. The aim is to reduce the measured value ingeneral as well as the difference between the twoEMG channels. Another possibility is to let the clientassume various work postures, to set markers for eachof them, and then to analyze it thoroughly in the ses-sion discussion. Which posture caused pain?Tinnitus: EMG relaxation is the training recommendedto treat tinnitus. Depending on the first diagnostics andlocalization of the troubles, the M. Masseter, M. Tra-pezius, or M Sternocleidomastoideus should be meas-ured. The best thing is to combine it with progressivemuscle relaxation in order to guarantee an overallrelaxation.Bruxism: Two kinds of therapy are possible here: onthe one hand, an EMG relaxation training with linegraph feedback, and on the other an EMG feedbackwith threshold training. Biofeedback records the mus-cle potentials of the M. Masseter during sleep. When-ever the values exceed a predefined threshold, thecomputer emits an acoustic signal, and the clientwakes up.

4.3.8 BFVASO – Blood circulation

The change of peripheral blood volume is controlled byvasomotor, that is, by sympathetic arousal of vasocon-strictory fibers. Feedback is given either via the tem-perature sensor or the pulse sensors. The temperaturesensor measures the current skin temperature at oneextremity (e.g. the hand). The pulse sensors measurethe pulse volume amplitude, which is the differencebetween maximum and minimum blood volume with ina cardiac cycle. This difference is greater in dilatedthan in contracted vessels.

Areas of application:Morbus Raynaud: Reasons for this illness are hyper-activity and vasospasms caused by cold and/or emo-tional stress. First it is recommended to implement acommon hand warming training. Later on, the clientshould try to maintain vasomotor control at tempera-tures that trigger these symptoms, since peripheralvasospasms occur most of the time at very low tem-peratures.

Migraine: the client is supposed to gain control overhis/her vasomotor activity via temperature feedbackfrom the non-dominant hand. Apart from the preciseprotocol of the seizures and a medical clarification ofthe symptoms, a combination of temperature feedbackand relaxation training is especially effective.Essential hypertension: The aim is to reduce thesympathetic nerve activation. One of the clearest signsof physical relaxation is the feeling of warm hands.This is caused by vasodilatation (expansion of thevessels) in the extremities, resulting in a reduction ofblood pressure. Apart from the classic hand warmingtraining, relaxation training, breathing training andreduction of the resting heart rate is also recom-mended.Temperature training: One of the clearest signs ofphysical relaxation is the feeling of warm hands. Theclient is instructed to warm his/her hands. Imaginativetechniques can be very supportive here.

41

BFB modules4.3.9 BFSTR – Activation screening (Stress test)

During confrontation with a (visual and acoustic stres-sor, all physiological parameters of the client are re-corded. The subsequent scoring shows on the onehand, which vegetative system (cardio-vascular, elec-tro-dermal, etc.) of the client reacts most visibly, on the

other hand conclusions about mental processes (e.g.anxious expectation) can be drawn as the sessionproceeds.

Areas of application:Stress management, psychosomatic troublescaused by stress, psycho-physiological tolerance

4.3.10 BFBEL – Tolerance test

During the session, the client is asked to judge form,color and pitch of an unsteady geometric figure usingthe computer mouse. The computer always calculatesthe difficulty and adapts it to the capacity of the client.This makes sure that the client is exposed to a con-

tinuous optimum level of stress. The scoring of thepsycho-physiological reaction components can subse-quently be issued.

Areas of application:Stress management, psychosomatic troublescaused by stress, psycho-physiological tolerance

4.3.11 BF-Statistical module

The BFB2000 statistical module is a program to pre-pare the data compiled with Biofeedback 2000 forfurther statistical application. The data are divided intointervals that allow for the calculation of (statistical)values. The result can be used as a basis for furtherstatistical analysis.

Documents

Sport Psychology: Sport test battery for diagnostics and training