Tasks of Executive Control TEC. Protocol Summary Report. Developed by Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Robert M. Roth, PhD, Gerard A. Gioia, PhD, and PAR Staff

Similar documents
Tasks of Executive Control TEC. Score Report. Developed by Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Robert M. Roth, PhD, Gerard A. Gioia, PhD, and PAR Staff

Tasks of Executive Control TEC. Interpretive Report. Developed by Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Robert M. Roth, PhD, Gerard A. Gioia, PhD, and PAR Staff

CONNERS K-CPT 2. Conners Kiddie Continuous Performance Test 2 nd Edition C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function BRIEF. Interpretive Report. Developed by SAMPLE

Client/Testing Information

by Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Robert M. Roth, PhD, Gerard A. Gioia, PhD, and PAR Staff

A Guide to Clinical Interpretation of the Test of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A. TM )

Score Report N. Florida Ave. Lutz, FL

Identifying Information

Performance You Can See & Hear

PAI Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Report by Michael D. Roberts, PhD, ABPP

STAXI-II State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 TM Police and Public Safety Report TM

Interpretive Report. Developed by Peter R. Vagg, PhD, and Charles D. Spielberger, PhD. Client Information

State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory Interpretive Report (STAXI-2: IR ) by Peter R. Vagg, PhD, and Charles D. Spielberger, PhD. Client Information

Item Comparing surfaces

Tips for Writing a Research Paper in APA format:

PRINCIPLES OF STATISTICS

APPENDIX D STRUCTURE OF RAW DATA FILES

Interpretive Report. Client Information

CHAPTER 3 DATA ANALYSIS: DESCRIBING DATA

Test review. Comprehensive Trail Making Test (CTMT) By Cecil R. Reynolds. Austin, Texas: PRO-ED, Inc., Test description

COGMED CLINICAL EVALUATION SERIES

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

M P---- Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist / Neuropsychologist

Disclosure. Your Presenter. Amy Patenaude, Ed.S., NCSP. 1(800) x331 1

Copyright 2018 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.

Conners CPT 3, Conners CATA, and Conners K-CPT 2 : Introduction and Application

Item Analysis Explanation

Speed Accuracy Trade-Off

Creation and Use of the Pervasive Developmental Disorder Behavior Inventory (PDDBI) Parent Form

LAB 1: MOTOR LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT REACTION TIME AND MEASUREMENT OF SKILLED PERFORMANCE. Name: Score:

bivariate analysis: The statistical analysis of the relationship between two variables.

Erica J. Yoon Introduction

1(800) x331 1

Teacher Form Interpretive Report

Measuring the User Experience

Attemo: An Objective Measure of Attention and Motion Control Pearson Clinical Assessment. Attemo Overview

AMERICAN BOARD OF SURGERY 2009 IN-TRAINING EXAMINATION EXPLANATION & INTERPRETATION OF SCORE REPORTS

How to assess the strength of relationships

Attributes Statistical Sampling Tables

Polymer Technology Systems, Inc. CardioChek PA Comparison Study

Cognitive Functioning in Children with Motor Impairments

AN INDEPENDENT VALIDATION OF QRISK ON THE THIN DATABASE

CRITERIA FOR USE. A GRAPHICAL EXPLANATION OF BI-VARIATE (2 VARIABLE) REGRESSION ANALYSISSys

This chapter shows how to use a formula method for dosage calculation to calculate the

Results & Statistics: Description and Correlation. I. Scales of Measurement A Review

Online Appendix. Supply-Side Drug Policy in the Presence of Substitutes: Evidence from the Introduction of Abuse-Deterrent Opioids

Neuropsychology of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

SAMPLE. Conners 3 Comparative Report. By C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

HAB QM INDICATORS REPORT

MOVEMENT PREPARATION LAB. Name: Score: Activity I: Predictability of the correct response choice & Influence of Pre cueing

TEST REVIEWS. Conners Kiddie Continuous Performance Test 2nd Edition

A Penny for Your Thoughts: Scientific Measurements and Introduction to Excel

Children's Depression Inventory 2nd Edition: Parent Maria Kovacs, Ph.D.

STAT445 Midterm Project1

Modelling performance in the Sustained Attention to Response Task

The Danger of Incorrect Expectations In Driving: The Failure to Respond

The Simon Effect as a Function of Temporal Overlap between Relevant and Irrelevant

RAG Rating Indicator Values

Sample Lab Report 1 from 1. Measuring and Manipulating Passive Membrane Properties

Psychology of Perception Psychology 4165, Fall 2001 Laboratory 1 Weight Discrimination

Interaction of Taxonomic and Contextual Knowledge in Categorization of Cross-Classified Instances

Supporting Information

CHAPTER NINE DATA ANALYSIS / EVALUATING QUALITY (VALIDITY) OF BETWEEN GROUP EXPERIMENTS

Metabolic Biochemistry GST and the Effects of Curcumin Practical: Criterion-Referenced Marking Criteria Rubric

Statistics: Making Sense of the Numbers

PAUL S. MATTSON AND LISA R. FOURNIER

Chapter 1: Managing workbooks

the remaining half of the arrays, a single target image of a different type from the remaining

To What Extent Can the Recognition of Unfamiliar Faces be Accounted for by the Direct Output of Simple Cells?

Selecting a Response in Task Switching: Testing a Model of Compound Cue Retrieval

SAMPLE. Conners Clinical Index Self-Report Assessment Report. By C. Keith Conners, Ph.D.

Supplementary Materials

Reaction Time, Movement Time, and Intelligence

Behavioral Task Performance

Supplementary Materials: Materials and Methods Figures S1-S2 Tables S1-S17 References

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 233 ( 2016 )

How to Compute Mean Scores: CFAI-W

University of Alberta. The SNARC effect as a tool to Examine Crosstalk during Numerical Processing in a PRP paradigm. Shawn Tan

The Predictive Validity of the Test of Infant Motor Performance on School Age Motor Developmental Delay

Using contextual analysis to investigate the nature of spatial memory

Rapid communication Integrating working memory capacity and context-processing views of cognitive control

Running head: THE FASTER SEX 1. The Faster Sex: Examining Trial Position Effects on Reaction Time. Honors Research Thesis

NIAID DAIDS FLOW CYTOMETRY LABORATORY CERTIFICATION

cloglog link function to transform the (population) hazard probability into a continuous

Chapter 3. Psychometric Properties

Psychology of Perception Psychology 4165, Spring 2015 Laboratory 1 Noisy Representations: The Oblique Effect

Ehrlinger, Mitchum, & Dweck Supplemental Material p. 1 Supplementary Material

New Group Reading Test Level 3A

Regression CHAPTER SIXTEEN NOTE TO INSTRUCTORS OUTLINE OF RESOURCES

Student Disability Services San Diego State University

Statistics Spring Study Guide

Making time: Estimation of internally versus externally defined durations

Supplementary Figure 1. Recording sites.

Heart Rate and Exercise. Evaluation copy. Figure 1

Book review. Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS). By C.K. Conners, D. Erhardt, M.A. Sparrow. New York: Multihealth Systems, Inc.

Intelligence. Reversing the speed IQ correlation: Intra-individual variability and attentional control in the inspection time paradigm

Relationship between reaction time, mental processing speed and motor speed in individuals with mild to moderate brain injury

Psychology of Perception Psychology 4165, Spring 2003 Laboratory 1 Weight Discrimination

Topics. Experiment Terminology (Part 1)

Transcription:

Tasks of Executive Control TEC Protocol Summary Report Developed by Peter K. Isquith, PhD, Robert M. Roth, PhD, Gerard A. Gioia, PhD, and PAR Staff Report Information Name: Sample Client Gender: Male Date of Birth: 0//99 Handedness: Right First : Test Date: /0/008 Test Description: Visit Post-injury Second : Test Date: Test Description: Visit Post-injury Third : Test Date: //008 Test Description: Post-injury visit Prepared for: Examiner Example, PhD PAR Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. 60 North Florida Ave. Lutz, FL 9.800..878 www.parinc.com TEC : Protocol Summary Report Copyright 006, 009 by Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. (PAR). All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in whole or in part in any form or by any means without written permission of Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Version:.00 (.00.06 )

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of Introduction The Tasks of Executive Control (TEC) Protocol Summary Report provides tabular and graphical data for TEC scores for one or more administrations of the TEC. Factor scores, Summary scores, and Task scores are reported in detail for each TEC administration. To facilitate comparison of performance across administrations, for such purposes as measuring change after treatment or evaluating recovery following injury or illness, standardized regression-based (SRB) change scores are provided for Factor and Summary scores on repeat administrations relative to the first administration. Data for the first administration appear in the left-hand column of the tables in this report. The TEC Protocol Summary Report does not allow for comparison of within-test change. Please refer to the TEC Client Report for information regarding within-test SRB change scores. The TEC includes five forms with equivalent numbers and types of stimuli and identical timing of stimulus presentations. Only the picture stimuli differ between forms. Forms,, and are equivalent. That is, there are no significant or substantial differences between standard scores for these three forms, allowing direct comparison of scores. Two additional forms are included for situations when a fourth or fifth TEC administration may be desirable, such as research or repeated assessment of recovery or treatment effects. Although Forms and are equivalent in design to Forms,, and, their statistical equivalence has not yet been examined. Therefore, the s and percentiles for Forms and, which are calculated using the equations for Forms through and appear in the Protocol Summary Report, should be compared to those from Forms,, and cautiously. Please see chapter of the TEC Professional Manual for further details. Significant changes that occur in TEC Factor or Summary scores from to s,,, and/or are indicated with an asterisk (*) and bolded text within the tables. A Factor or Summary score is deemed to have changed significantly if the difference between the predicted and obtained scores for,,, or falls outside of an 80% confidence interval. Scores for,,, and are predicted using SRB change scores that control for gender, age, and the individual s performance on TEC. SRB change scores are not provided for individual Task scores, as this involves many additional calculations and an increased risk of Type I error. For more information about SRB analyses, please see chapter of the TEC Professional Manual. It is important to note that SRB change scores are provided to supplement, not replace, clinical judgment in evaluating change in performance. Validity of TEC Valid interpretation of the TEC requires that the tasks be administered correctly and with timing that follows the prescribed parameters. The TEC software self-verifies the accuracy of computer administration. Results of the verification indicate that there were no problems with the accuracy or timing of any the TEC administrations. Valid interpretation of the TEC also requires that all recommended tasks for a given age are completed in sequential order for each TEC administration (i.e., children ages -7 years must complete Tasks through for each administration; children and adolescents ages 8-8 years must complete Tasks through 6 for each administration). Results of this validity check indicate

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of that Sample completed the number of required tasks for his age group in the recommended order. Finally, valid interpretation of the TEC requires that the client exert adequate effort on the tasks. Behavioral observations should be considered when determining whether appropriate effort was put forth during each TEC administration. Further, responding accurately to fewer than 0 Standard (i.e. Blue button) or fewer than Target (i.e. Red button) stimuli on a given task may suggest inadequate effort or difficulty understanding task demands. Validity of the resulting scores, particularly for the given task, may be questionable. In regards to the Standard stimuli, results of this validity check indicate that Sample put forth adequate effort during all TEC administrations, suggesting that results are interpretable. In regards to Target stimuli, results of this validity check indicate that Sample put forth adequate effort during all TEC administrations, suggesting that results are interpretable. Factor Scores TEC Performance Factor scores provide a statistically based composite indication of performance on the TEC as a whole. Four Factor scores on the TEC are calculated for children and adolescents 8 years of age and older based on the TEC factor structure (see chapter of the TEC Manual). These include: ) Sustained is defined by five accuracy measures and two response time measures for Standard stimuli. Better performance (i.e., lower s) reflects greater accuracy in responding to the high frequency Standard stimuli for most of the test along with modulation of speed of response. ) Selective Attention is defined by a combination of correct responses to Target stimuli (i.e., Target Correct; these are selective responses) and commission errors (i.e., Commissions; these reflect inhibitory control). In this performance factor, the respondent must selectively coordinate his or her responses to both the Standard and Target stimuli, applying the task rules held in working memory. This score is a reflection of coordinated selective attention. Lower s reflect better coordination and control of attention, whereas higher s reflect problems with selective attention. ) Response Speed is defined by 9 of the Response Time (RT) variables for correct responses to Standard and Target stimuli across the six tasks. Interpretation of this factor score is relatively straightforward: A faster response speed corresponds to a lower (i.e., a better performance). Conversely, a slower response speed corresponds to a higher T score. ) Response Variability is defined by RT variability (as measured by the Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation; ICV) for 0 of the tasks (i.e., Target stimuli for the first four tasks; Standard stimuli for all six tasks). Lower s on this factor reflect more consistent (i.e., less variable) responding in general. Conversely, higher s reflect more variable performance. Factor scores for Sample are illustrated in the subsequent figure and reported in the subsequent tables (Factor score Summary table and Factor score SRB table).

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of Bar Graph of Factor T Scores Obtained for Each TEC 00 90 80 00 90 80 Time (/0/008) Time () Time (//008) 0 Sustained Selective Attention Response Speed Response Variability Factor 0 Factor T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained Across Each TEC for 8 to 8 Year Olds Factor Sustained Selective Attention Response Speed Response Variability /0/008 () [0.78] [.0] 66 (9) [-0.66] 6 (9) [-8.98] [.09] () [.] [-.] 6 (9) [-9.] //008 () [.9] () [.9] 7 (76) [-.66] (8) [-6.] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. Factor scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. () [] () [] () [] () []

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of Predicted Raw Scores, Obtained Raw Scores, and SRB Change Scores for the 8-8 Year Old Factors Across Each TEC Factor Sustained Selective Attention Response Speed Response Variability Time vs Time.69 (.09) [0.].9 (.) [0.0] -9.7 (-.) [.76 * ] -.8 (-9.) [0.] Comparison Time vs Time.69 (.9) [0.8].9 (.9) [.7 * ] -9.7 (-.66) [.98 * ] -.8 (-6.) [.68 * ] Time vs Time () [] () [] () [] () [] Time vs Time () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. SRB = Standardized regression-based. An asterisk (*) and bolded text indicates significant change (>.80 Confidence Interval) relative to. Factor scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. Summary Scores The TEC provides s, percentiles, and raw scores for TEC Summary scores for each administration. Summary scores reflect an individual s average performance for each accuracy and response time variable across all tasks completed and facilitate the examination of overall level of performance for these variables. These variables include (a) correct responses to Target stimuli (i.e., Target Correct), (b) correct responses to Standard stimuli (i.e., Standard Correct), (c) incorrect responses (i.e., ), (d) commission errors (i.e., Commissions), (e) RT for Target stimuli (i.e., ), (f) RT for Standard stimuli (i.e., ), (g) standard deviation of the RT (i.e., RTSD; calculated for Standard stimuli only), and (h) Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation (i.e., ICV; calculated for Standard stimuli only). The raw number of Target Omissions and Standard Omissions also are presented. The subsequent figures show the s obtained for the response accuracy and response time variables for each administration, respectively. The subsequent tables present the s, percentiles, and raw scores for TEC Summary scores for each administration (Summary score table) and the predicted and SRB change scores for each Summary score across administrations (Summary score SRB table).

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page 6 of Bar Graph of Summary T Scores Obtained for Response s Across TEC s 00 90 80 00 90 80 Time (/0/008) Time () Time (//008) 0 Target Correct Standard Correct Commissions Response accuracy variable 0 Bar Graph of Summary T Scores Obtained for Response Time s Across TEC s 00 90 80 00 90 80 Time (/0/008) Time () Time (//008) 0 SD variable 0 Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page 7 of Summary T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for Each TEC /0/008 Target Correct a [.7 (66%)] Standard Correct a () [69.7 (96%)] 8 () [.8 (7%)] [69.67 (97%)] //008 () [7.7 (86%)] () [7.00 (99%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0.00] [0.00] [0.00] [] [] Standard Omissions Commissions SD () [] () [] [0.8] [0.00] [0.00] [] [] [8.] [.00] 66 (9) [6.] 66 (9) [90.00] 69 (97) [.] 6 (90) [0.9] () [7.] 9 () [.] [6.9] 7 (76) [7.8] 66 (9) [.8] 67 (96) [0.] 6 (8) [.67] (7) [.00] [.9] [97.0] 7 (76) [68.] [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. Age-specific norms were used to generate this profile. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Summary scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks. % Correct scores are calculated as the mean percentage of correct responses per task (e.g., for Standard stimuli, (0B % Correct + 0BI % Correct + + BI % Correct)/6) and not as the number of total correct responses divided by the total possible responses.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page 8 of Predicted Raw Scores, Obtained Raw Scores, and SRB Change Scores for Each Summary Score Across Each TEC Target Correct Standard Correct Commisions SD Time vs Time. (.8) [0.7] 69. (69.67) [0.] 7.9 (7.) [-0.0].86 (.) [-.] 9.8 (6.9) [.06] 7.00 (7.8) [.8 * ] 7.69 (.8) [.9 * ] 0. (0.) [0.] Comparison Time vs Time. (7.7) [.7 * ] 69. (7.00) [.8] 7.9 (.67) [.7 * ].86 (.00) [.7 * ] 9.8 (.9) [.9 * ] 7.00 (97.0) [.89 * ] 7.69 (68.) [. * ] 0. (0.) [. * ] Time vs Time () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Time vs Time () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. SRB = Standardized regression-based; RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. An asterisk (*) and bolded text indicates significant change (>.80 Confidence Interval) relative to. Summary scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page 9 of Task Scores The TEC provides s, percentiles, and raw scores for accuracy and response time variables for each task. These variables include Target Correct, Standard Correct,, Commissions,,, RTSD (calculated for Standard stimuli only), and ICV (calculated for Standard stimuli only). The raw number of Target Omissions and Standard Omissions also are presented. Because of the large number of potential comparisons and the increased likelihood of a Type I error, SRB change analyses are not calculated for individual Task scores between administrations. The following tables present the s, percentiles, and raw scores for accuracy and response time variables by administration for each TEC task, respectively. T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC 0-Back/No Inhibit (0B) Task /0/008 Target Correct a [6 (80%)] 7 Standard Correct a (8) [78 (98%)] [6 (80%)] 8 () [77 (96%)] //008 [6 (80%)] [80 (00%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions SD () [] () [] [0] [0] [0] [] [] [6] 68 (96) [66.88] 69 (97) [0.] 6 (9) [96.] 7 (76) [0.] 8 () [7] 6 (86) [.98] [97.] (8) [7.69] (8) [0.] [] 7 (76) [0.6] [99.6] 6 (86) [76.] 6 (86) [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page 0 of T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC 0-Back/Inhibit (0BI) Task Note /0/008 8 Target Correct a () [8 (90%)] Standard Correct a [6 (97%)] [ (7%)] () [6 (00%)] //008 [ (7%)] () [6 (98%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions Commissions SD () [] () [] [] [0] [0] [] [] () [] 8 () [] 8 (> 99) [8.07] 8 (> 99) [78.89] 7 (99) [.9] [0.] () [] (8) [] (8) [.] 7 (76) [8.97] 9 (8) [9.] [0.] 7 (8) [6] 8 () [] (6) [8.] [9.] 6 (86) [.8] (8) [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC -Back/No Inhibit (B) Task /0/008 Target Correct a () [ (%)] 7 Standard Correct a (8) [77 (96%)] [ (%)] 7 (8) [77 (96%)] //008 () [8 (90%)] () [79 (99%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions SD () [] () [] [] [0] [0] [] [] [9] 7 (98) [66.] 68 (96) [67.] (98) [.] (8) [0.8] [9] (66) [7.08] [.] 6 (9) [00.66] 6 (88) [0.9] 8 () [] 6 (90) [6.7] (6) [9.] [.9] [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC -Back/Inhibit (BI) Task /0/008 Target Correct a () [9 (%)] 7 Standard Correct a (8) [6 (9%)] () [6 (80%)] [6 (97%)] //008 8 () [8 (90%)] [6 (97%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions Commissions SD () [] () [] [0] [0] [0] [] [] () [] [] 9 (8) [90.8] 6 (86) [9.] 67 (96) [8.8] 6 (88) [0.] 9 () [6] (69) [7] [.] (69) [.87] 67 (96) [.77] (98) [0.7] () [] 8 () [] (66) [8.] (69) [.8] (66) [.8] () [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC -Back/No Inhibit (B) Task /0/008 8 Target Correct a () [0 (%)] Standard Correct a () [7 (9%)] (8) [ (6%)] () [7 (9%)] //008 () [7 (8%)] () [78 (98%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions SD () [] () [] [] [0] [0] [] [] [] [6.7] [6.] 69 (97) [76.] 69 (97) [0.] [] [.6] [0.0] 6 (86) [.08] 9 (8) [0.] 6 (8) [] () [.6] 7 (76) [8.9] (66) [76.7] () [0.] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks.

TEC Protocol Summary Report Page of T Scores, Percentiles, and Raw Scores Obtained for the TEC -Back/Inhibit (BI) Task /0/008 9 Target Correct a () [ (7%)] Standard Correct a [6 (97%)] 9 () [ (7%)] () [6 (98%)] //008 () [9 (9%)] (6) [6 (00%)] () [] () [] Target Omissions [0] [0] [0] [] [] Standard Omissions Commissions SD () [] () [] [0] [0] [0] [] [] (8) [7] () [7] (66) [0.08] [7.] (66) [8.] () [0.6] (6) [6] () [7] [.98] [.] 67 (96) [7.67] 67 (96) [0.] () [] () [] [.0] () [.0] () [7.87] () [0.7] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] () [] Note. RT = Response Time; RTSD = Standard Deviation of the Response Time; ICV = Intra-Individual Coefficient of Variation. Task scores that were not calculated because of missing or invalid data are indicated by an in this table. a s are based on the raw number of correct responses to Target or Standard stimuli. Percentage correct is displayed in parentheses within the brackets to facilitate comparison of performance across tasks. End of Report