Bausela HE

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 125-130
PDF size: 50.81 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In Mexico, some previous attempts have been made to collect normative data of children of diverse ages with diverse tests of neuropsichologic evaluation, these researchs have not been sufficient to have representative normative data of the cultural diversity characteristic of the Mexican Republic, and in concrete directed to people who present some type of cognitive affectation. Goals. This research comprises of the line of investigation that it has like purpose of contributing to the process of validation of the neuropsichologic battery Initial Luria- in Mexican population. In this paper, we are going away to focus in analyzing some psichometrics properties of the Luria-Inicial battery. Sample. The generating sample of 112 data niños/as of prestudent and first primary degree of, with ages between the 4 and 6 years are, of both sexes. 26 children present cognitive deficit or mental delay. Instruments. Two instruments were applied: Infantile Neuropsichology battery (Luria-Inicial) and the Test of Progressive Matrices of Raven. Outcomes. The first passage in the analysis was to obtain the global internal consistency of theLuria-Inicial battery through the Coefficient Alpha of Cronbach, being obtained itself a value of 861, slightly inferior to the obtained one in the validation process. With respect to the analysis of the internal structure of the Luria-Inicial battery four factors were obtained that explain the 68,521% of the total variance. Conclusions: The Luria-Inicial battery has shown to have good internal consistency in its totality analyzed in subtests and areas. As for the factorial structure, they agree in number, they differ as far as its composition, with the obtained ones with the standardized sample.

REFERENCES

1. De las Heras J. Etiopatogenia del retraso mental. Revista Complutense de Educación 1993; 4(2): 53-65.

2. Crissman BG. Current perspectives on Down syndrome: selected medical and social issues. Am J Med Gen 2006; 142: 127-30.

3. Plasencia S, Urraca N, Urbna MA, Palacios G, Vela M, Carnevele A. Manifestaciones clínicas, más frecuentes en niños y adolescentes con síndrome de Down. Acta Pediátrica de México 2005; 26(6): 308-12.

4. Delabar JM, Aflaro-Rattenbac R, Creau N. Developmental defects in trisomy 21 and mouse models. Scientific World J 2006; 6: 1945-64.

5. Dowjat WK, Adayev T, Kuchana I, Nowicki K, Palminiello S, Hwang YW, Wegiel J. Trisomy-driven over expression of Dyrkia a kinase in the brain of subjects with Down syndrome. Neuroscience Lett 2007; 413: 77-81.

6. Hammerle B, Bieri G, Elizalde C, Colonques J, Chulia J, Galceran J, Tejedor FJ. Una nueva hipótesis para el origen del déficit neuronal y las alteraciones de la diferenciación neuronal asociadas al síndrome de Down: implicación del gen Minibrain. Mafre Medicina 2004; 15(3): 34, 186-91.

7. Powell KB, Voeller KKS. Prefrontal executive function syndromes in children. J Child Neurol 2004; 19(10): 785-97.

8. Pennington BF, Moon J, Edgin J, Stedron J, Nadel L. The neuropsychology of Down Syndrome: Evidence for hippocampal dysfunction. Child Development 2003; 74(1): 75-93.

9. Nadel L. Down syndrome: a genetic disorder in behavioural perspective. Genes Brain Behaviour 2003; 2: 156-66.

10. Flórez J. Textos y documentos. Actas de X Reunión Internacional sobre Biología Molecular del cromosoma 21 y el Síndrome de Down; 2002

11. Manga D, Ramos F. Luria-Inicial. Evaluación neuropsicológica de la edad preescolar. Madrid: TEA; 2006.

12. Raven JC. Test de matrices progresivas. Escala coloreada. Cuaderno de Matrices/Series A, AB y B. México: Paidos; 2004.