ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

Table 1

•Download as DOC, PDF•
•
D
Despina Ioannidou

The document reports the results of 17 studies comparing the performance of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients to normal subjects on various cognitive tests. For each study, it provides information on the statistical analysis conducted to evaluate the significance of differences in performance between AD patients and controls. Across the studies, t-tests and ANOVAs consistently showed significant performance differences, with large effect sizes in many cases.

1 of 2
Download to read offline
Table 1. Size-effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the performances of AD patients and normal subjects(group effects) Study Effect size information Sig. AD patients vs controls(group effect) size effect r . 1)Salmon et al (1988) 2)Heindel et al (1989) 3)Randolph (1991) 4)Bondi & Kaszniak (1991) 5)Keane & Gabrieli (1991) 6)Burke et al (1994) 7)Gabrieli et al (1994) 8)Grosse et al (1990) 9)Partridge et al (1990) 10)Scott et al (1991) t-test reported as 4.0, df=24 t-test reported as 4.73, df=26 t-test reported as 3.2, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.03 with df=2,40(i.e.N=44) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1.18(i.e.N=20) F reported as significant at 0.001 with df=1,36(N=40) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,28(i.e.N=30) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=27) t-test reported as 0.8, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,26(i.e.N=28) 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.01 1.0 0.05 0.01 difference difference difference difference difference difference difference indifference difference difference r = 0.64 r = 0.68 r = 0.51 r = 0.28 r = 0.52 r = 0.48 r = 0.42 r = -0.44 r = 0.14 r = 0.43
11)Russo & Spinler (1994) 12) Huberman & Moscovitch (1994) 13)Fleischman et al (1997) 14) Park et al(1998) 15)Christensen et al (1992) 16)Randolph et al (1995) 17)Downes et al (1996) exp 1 exp 2 F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=24) F reported as significant at 0.25 with df=3,51(i.e.N=55) F reported as significant at 0.28 but not given (N=52) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given (N=32) given F reported as significant at 0.01 under two conditions, N=42 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,12 (N=14) F reported as significant at 0.05 N=28 1.0 0.25 0.28 1.0 0.193 0.01 0.01 0.05 indifference indifference indifference indifference indifference difference difference indifference r = -0.47 r = 0.09 r = 0.08 r = -0.41 r = 0.15 from d=0.30 r = 0.35 r = 0.62 r = 0.31

More Related Content

Table 1

  • 1. Table 1. Size-effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the performances of AD patients and normal subjects(group effects) Study Effect size information Sig. AD patients vs controls(group effect) size effect r . 1)Salmon et al (1988) 2)Heindel et al (1989) 3)Randolph (1991) 4)Bondi & Kaszniak (1991) 5)Keane & Gabrieli (1991) 6)Burke et al (1994) 7)Gabrieli et al (1994) 8)Grosse et al (1990) 9)Partridge et al (1990) 10)Scott et al (1991) t-test reported as 4.0, df=24 t-test reported as 4.73, df=26 t-test reported as 3.2, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.03 with df=2,40(i.e.N=44) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1.18(i.e.N=20) F reported as significant at 0.001 with df=1,36(N=40) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,28(i.e.N=30) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=27) t-test reported as 0.8, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,26(i.e.N=28) 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.01 1.0 0.05 0.01 difference difference difference difference difference difference difference indifference difference difference r = 0.64 r = 0.68 r = 0.51 r = 0.28 r = 0.52 r = 0.48 r = 0.42 r = -0.44 r = 0.14 r = 0.43
  • 2. 11)Russo & Spinler (1994) 12) Huberman & Moscovitch (1994) 13)Fleischman et al (1997) 14) Park et al(1998) 15)Christensen et al (1992) 16)Randolph et al (1995) 17)Downes et al (1996) exp 1 exp 2 F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=24) F reported as significant at 0.25 with df=3,51(i.e.N=55) F reported as significant at 0.28 but not given (N=52) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given (N=32) given F reported as significant at 0.01 under two conditions, N=42 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,12 (N=14) F reported as significant at 0.05 N=28 1.0 0.25 0.28 1.0 0.193 0.01 0.01 0.05 indifference indifference indifference indifference indifference difference difference indifference r = -0.47 r = 0.09 r = 0.08 r = -0.41 r = 0.15 from d=0.30 r = 0.35 r = 0.62 r = 0.31