Quantitative estimates of performance on the Taylor Complex Figure (TCF) by children aged 4-17 years

PDF (Rus)

Recieved: 01/27/2019

Accepted: 04/17/2019

Published: 04/30/2019

p.: 88-108

DOI: 10.11621/npj.2019.0109

Keywords: guideline exposure; children; neuropsychological diagnostics; constructive-spatial functions; visual memory disorder; spatial conceptions; validity

Available online: 30.04.2019

To cite this article:

Khokhlov, N.A., Serdyuk Alexandra E.. Quantitative estimates of performance on the Taylor Complex Figure (TCF) by children aged 4-17 years. // National Psychological Journal 2019. 1. p.88-108. doi: 10.11621/npj.2019.0109

Copied to Clipboard

Copy

Khokhlov, N.A. Centre for Testing and Development “Humanitarian Technologies”

Serdyuk Alexandra E. Lomonosov Moscow State University

Abstract

Introduction. The Taylor Complex Figure (TCF) technique is one of the neuropsychologist’s tools and is used to diagnose children after 4 y.o. and adults for assessing visual spatial characteristics, visual constructive skills and visual memory.

However, the lack of quantitative standards for using the Taylor method obtained within the Russian sample makes it difficult to apply it both in research and in practical work.

The Objective is to obtain age standards of the “Taylor Integrated Figure” technique on children 4–17 years old, and also to validate it according to the results of a neuropsychological examination.

Procedure. The study used the quantitative approach to assess the “Taylor Integrated Figure” children of 4–17 years. Each of the 18 elements of the figure was evaluated by the quality of the pattern and the correctness of the placement in space. The figure obtained by copying the original image and the figure reproduced by memory 20 minutes after copying were separately evaluated. Additionally, a qualitative assessment of the figures was carried out according to the level of development of metric and structural topological representations. The study involved 377 children, of which 243 boys and 134 girls aged from 52 to 214 months (average age - 117 ± 42 months).

Results. The nonlinear dependence of the estimated indicators on age was found. Age standards for the implementation of the technique for 5 age groups (4–5, 6–7, 8–9, 10–12, 13–17 years) were calculated. Indicators of the complexity of working with each element of the figure were obtained. Based on the analysis of the success ratio of the simplest and most complex elements of the figure, a mathematically grounded threshold for making a decision on the presence of aggravation has been proposed. The validity of the technique was assessed based on the results of a neuropsychological examination. It is shown that the technique to the greatest extent measures structural and spatial functions and visual memory in children under 13 years, it has low discriminant validity with respect to other neuropsychological characteristics. The substantive validity of qualitative assessments and quantitative indicators is in many respects the same, while quantitative indicators are about 1.5 times more strongly associated with the results of neuropsychological diagnostics.

Conclusion. Analysis of the predictive ability of logistic regression models indicates the possibility of applying the technique for screening diagnostics at school. The method allows separating children without neurocognitive deficiency from those who need to undergo a full neuropsychological examination.

Table 2. Age standards of using “Taylor Integrated Figure” technique

Age (years)	4–5	6–7	8–9	10–12	13–17
Quantitative Evaluation
Copy - figure(CF)	8.6 ± 4.2	13.8 ± 2.3	15.7 ± 1.4	16.4 ± 1.2	17 ± 1.4
Copy – placement(CP)	9.4 ± 5	14.5 ± 2.7	16.5 ± 1.4	17.1 ± 1.1	17.5 ± 1.3
Reproduction – figure (RF)	5.3 ± 4	9.4 ± 3.2	11.7 ± 3.6	12.5 ± 2.9	13.8 ± 3
Reproduction – placement(RP)	5.7 ± 4.5	9.7 ± 3.5	12.4 ± 3.8	13.3 ± 3.2	14.6 ± 3.1
Copy (C)	18 ± 9.1	28.3 ± 4.8	32.3 ± 2.5	33.5 ± 2.2	34.5 ± 2.6
Reproduction (R)	11 ± 8.4	19.1 ± 6.6	24.1 ± 7.3	25.8 ± 6	28.4 ± 6
Figure (F)	13.8 ± 7.7	23.1 ± 5	27.4 ± 4.5	28.9 ± 3.7	30.7 ± 3.9
Placement (P)	15.1 ± 8.9	24.3 ± 5.5	29 ± 4.8	30.4 ± 3.8	32.1 ± 3.8
Total Score	29 ± 16.4	47.4 ± 10.3	56.3 ± 9.1	59.2 ± 7.3	62.8 ± 7.6
Qualitative Evaluation
Copy – metric representations(CM)	2.1 ± 1	3.2 ± 0.7	3.6 ± 0.7	4 ± 0.6	4.3 ± 0.6
Copy-structural topological representations (CST)	2.3 ± 1.2	3.3 ± 0.9	4.1 ± 0.7	4.4 ± 0.7	4.7 ± 0.5
Reproduction – metric representations(RM)	1.5 ± 1	2.7 ± 0.8	3.3 ± 0.8	3.6 ± 0.7	4 ± 0.7
Reproduction - structural and topological representations (RST)	1.5 ± 1.1	2.4 ± 0.9	3.1 ± 1	3.4 ± 0.8	3.8 ± 0.9

Table 3. Taylor Complex Figure elements

№	Taylor Complex Figure elements	Initial Scale				Mean
№	Taylor Complex Figure elements	CF	CP	RF	RP	Mean
1	Arrow at left	-2.5621	-2.4849	-1.2341	-1.1965	-1.8694
2	Triangle at left	-1.9612	-2.1595	-1.1524	-1.3038	-1.6442
3	Square	-0.5549	-2.4481	-0.3757	-1.7047	-1.2709
4	Horizontal line	-1.5873	-1.8105	-1.0601	-1.0951	-1.3883
5	Vertical line	-1.5779	-1.3276	-0.9717	-0.836	-1.1783
6	Horizontal line in top half	-1.219	-1.4181	0.6419	0.6185	-0.3442
7	Diagonals in top left quadrant	-2.1312	-1.7253	-0.7011	-0.6477	-1.3013
8	Square in top left quadrant	-1.4609	-1.6254	-0.4756	-0.5607	-1.0307
9	Circle	-2.7338	-2.2795	-1.088	-0.9717	-1.7683
10	Rectangle	-1.8105	-1.9368	-0.3757	-0.3867	-1.1274
11	Arrow at top right quadrant	-2.0499	-1.3117	-1.067	-0.5952	-1.256
12	Semicircle	-1.7779	-1.204	-0.2722	0.0318	-0.8056
13	Triangles	-1.5593	-1.4351	0.3374	0.0637	-0.6483
14	Dots	-1.0053	-1.6254	-0.1488	-0.4532	-0.8082
15	Horizontal line between dots	-2.0765	-2.0499	-0.1328	-0.0956	-1.0887
16	Triangle at bottom	-2.0112	-2.2031	-0.2668	-0.2722	-1.1883
17	Streacky wave	-0.4365	-1.9249	0.1051	-0.9321	-0.7971
18	Star	-0.5607	-2.1595	0.2237	-0.47	-0.7416

Table 4. Neuropsychological validity regression models of “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (total score)

Neuropsychological characteristics	Standardizedcoefficient	R²	Adjusted R²
4–17 years (together)
Visual memory	0.536	0.426	0.425
Constructive-spatial functions	0.115	0.454	0.451
Thinking	0.113	0.469	0.464
Dynamic Praxis	0.092	0.478	0.472
Visual perception	0.091	0.484	0.477
4–5 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.429	0.28	0.26
Thinking	0.301	0.413	0.379
Oral-verbal memory	0.295	0.491	0.445
6–7 years
Visual memory	0.432	0.279	0.272
Visual perception	0.229	0.327	0.313
Dynamic Praxis	0.184	0.361	0.341
8–9 years
Visual memory	0.585	0.582	0.574
Visual perception	0.253	0.64	0.626
Dynamic Praxis	0.23	0.698	0.68
Constructive-spatial functions	0.174	0.724	0.701
10–12 years
Visual memory	0.663	0.503	0.495
Dynamic Praxis	0.289	0.584	0.572
13–17 years
Visual memory	0.641	0.611	0.606
Constructive-spatial functions	0.269	0.664	0.655

Table 5. Regression models of neuropsychological validity of the “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (on the secondary scale “Copy”)

Neuropsychological characteristics	Standardizedcoefficient	R²	скорректированныйR²
4–17 years (все вместе)
Constructive-spatial functions	0.276	0.153	0.150
Regulatory functions	0.164	0.196	0.191
Dynamic Praxis	0.134	0.212	0.205
Visual memory	0.129	0.226	0.217
4–5 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.509	0.287	0.266
Attention	0.323	0.39	0.354
6–7 years
Visual perception	0.196	0.109	0.1
Dynamic Praxis	0.204	0.166	0.148
Constructive-spatial functions	0.248	0.217	0.192
Regulatory functions	0.198	0.253	0.222
8–9 years
Regulatory functions	0.301	0.254	0.239
Constructive-spatial functions	0.292	0.36	0.335
Dynamic Praxis	0.282	0.426	0.392
Visual perception	0.229	0.476	0.434
10–12 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.337	0.256	0.245
Dynamic Praxis	0.311	0.366	0.347
Attention	0.25	0.424	0.398
13–17 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.415	0.173	0.161

Table 6. Regression models of neuropsychological validity of the “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (on the secondary scale “Reproduction”)

Neuropsychological characteristics	Standardizedcoefficient	R²	Adjusted R²
4–17 years (все вместе)
Visual memory	0.605	0.494	0.493
Oral-verbal memory	0.125	0.514	0.511
Visual perception	0.107	0.525	0.521
Regulatory functions	0.084	0.532	0.526
4–5 years
Visual memory	0.357	0.364	0.346
Oral-verbal memory	0.331	0.476	0.445
Constructive-spatial functions	0.314	0.56	0.52
6–7 years
Visual memory	0.495	0.358	0.351
Speech	0.201	0.41	0.398
Visual perception	0.175	0.435	0.417
8-9 years
Visual memory	0.662	0.598	0.591
Visual perception	0.279	0.663	0.65
Dynamic Praxis	0.177	0.693	0.675
10–12 years
Visual memory	0.729	0.573	0.567
Dynamic Praxis	0.180	0.605	0.593
13–17 years
Visual memory	0.719	0.684	0.68
Constructive-spatial functions	0.206	0.715	0.707

Table 7. Regression models of neuropsychological validity of the “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (on the secondary scale “Figure”)

Neuropsychological characteristics	Standardizedcoefficient	R²	Adjusted R²
4–17 years (все вместе)
Visual memory	0.452	0.379	0.377
Constructive-spatial functions	0.134	0.411	0.407
Thinking	0.105	0.427	0.422
Oral-verbal memory	0.101	0.439	0.432
Visual perception	0.102	0.448	0.440
Regulatory functions	0.091	0.456	0.446
4–5 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.41	0.266	0.245
Oral-verbal memory	0.334	0.415	0.381
Thinking	0.268	0.482	0.435
6–7 years
Visual memory	0.361	0.269	0.262
Visual perception	0.256	0.34	0.326
Oral-verbal memory	0.217	0.388	0.369
Dynamic Praxis	0.17	0.417	0.392
8–9 years
Visual memory	0.586	0.506	0.497
Visual perception	0.284	0.57	0.554
Dynamic Praxis	0.243	0.627	0.605
10–12 years
Visual memory	0.614	0.429	0.421
Dynamic Praxis	0.262	0.496	0.482
13–17 years
Visual memory	0.56	0.526	0.519
Constructive-spatial functions	0.314	0.597	0.586

Table 8. Regression models of neuropsychological validity of the “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (on the secondary scale “Placement”)

Neuropsychological characteristics	Standardizedcoefficient	R²	Adjusted R²
4–17 years (все вместе)
Visual memory	0.571	0.43	0.429
Constructive-spatial functions	0.119	0.452	0.448
Thinking	0.104	0.463	0.458
Dynamic Praxis	0.088	0.47	0.464
4–5 years
Constructive-spatial functions	0.453	0.299	0.279
Thinking	0.301	0.428	0.394
Oral-verbal memory	0.269	0.492	0.446
6–7 years
Visual memory	0.431	0.262	0.254
Dynamic Praxis	0.193	0.302	0.287
Visual perception	0.188	0.332	0.311
8–9 years
Visual memory	0.601	0.61	0.603
Visual perception	0.266	0.678	0.666
Constructive-spatial functions	0.205	0.72	0.704
Dynamic Praxis	0.161	0.745	0.725
10–12 years
Visual memory	0.664	0.503	0.496
Dynamic Praxis	0.271	0.582	0.57
Progress rate	0.169	0.611	0.593
13–17 years
Visual memory	0.723	0.662	0.658
Constructive-spatial functions	0.173	0.684	0.675

Table 9. Predicted data of neurocognitive deficiency “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (total score)

	Obtained data
Predicted data	With neurocognitive deficiency	Without neurocognitive deficiency
With neurocognitive deficiency	36	63
Without neurocognitive deficiency	19	222

Table 10. Predicted data of neurocognitive deficiency “Taylor Complex Figure” technique (“Copy” scale)

	Obtained data
Predicted data	With neurocognitive deficiency	With neurocognitive deficiency
With neurocognitive deficiency	27	55
Without neurocognitive deficiency	28	230

References

Akhutina T.V. (ed.) (2016). Methods of neuropsychological examination of 6–9 year old children. Moscow, V. Sekachev, 280.
Akhutina T.V., & Pylaeva N.M. (2015). Overcoming the difficulties of learning: Neuropsychological approach: studies. allowance for stud. institutions higher. education. Moscow, Akademiya, 288.
Akhutina T.V., Kamardina I.O., & Pylaeva N.M. (2012). Neuropsychologist at school: a manual for teachers, school psychologists and parents. Moscow, V. Sekachev, 48.
Akhutina T.V., Korneev A.A., & Matveeva E.Yu. (2016). Development of programming and control functions in children aged 7–9 years. [Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta].Series 14. Psychology, 1, 42–63.
Awad N., Tsiakas M., Gagnon M., Mertens V.B., Hill E., & Messier C. (2004). Explicit and objective scoring criteria for the Taylor complex figure test. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26(3), 405–415.doi:10.1080/13803390490510112
Balashov E.Yu., & Kovyazina M.S. (2014). Neuropsychological diagnosis. Classic stimulus materials. Moscow, Genesis, 12 (+ 72)
Balashova E.Yu., & Kovyazina M.S. (2013). Neuropsychological diagnostics in questions and answers. Moscow, Genesis, 240.
Casey M.B, Winner E., Hurwitz I., & DaSilva D. (1991). Does processing style affect recall of the Rey-Osterrieth or Taylor complex figures? Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,13(4), 600–606.doi:10.1080/01688639108401074
Del Pino R., Peña J., Ibarretxe-Bilbao N., Schretlen D.J., & Ojeda N. (2015). Test de la figura compleja de Taylor: administración y corrección según un proceso de normalización y estandarización en población española. Revista De Neurologia, 61(9), 395–404.
Duley J.F., Wilkins J.W., Hamby S.L., Hopkins D.G., Burwell R.D., & Barry N.S. (1993). Explicit scoring criteria for the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor complex figures. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7(1), 29–38.doi:10.1080/13854049308401885
Gagnon M., Awad N., Mertens V.B., & Messier C. (2003). Comparing the Rey and Taylor Complex Figures: A Test-Retest Study in Young and Older Adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(6), 878–890.doi:10.1076/jcen.25.6.878.16480
Glozman J.M. (2009). Neuropsychology of childhood: manual. Moscow, Akademiya, 272.
Glozman J.M. (2017). Neuropsychology of childhood: textbook. Moscow, Yurayt, 258.
Glozman J.M., & Sobolev A.E. (2013). Neuropsychological diagnosis of school-age children. Moscow: Meaning, 166.
Glozman Zh.M. (ed.) (2016). Practical neuropsychology. Experience of working with children learning with difficulties. Moscow, Genesis, 336.
Korsakova N.K., Mikadze Yu.V., & Balashova E.Yu. (2017). Poor children: neuropsychological diagnosis of younger students: manual. Moscow, Yurayt, 156.
Kuehn S.M., & Snow W.G. (1992). Are the Rey and Taylor figures equivalent? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,7(5), 445–448.
Manelis N.G. (1997). Development of optical-spatial functions in ontogenesis. [Shola zdorov’ya],4(3), 25–37.
Melrose R.J., Harwood D., Khoo T., Mandelkern M., & Sultzer D.L. (2013). Association between cerebral metabolism and Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test performance in Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,35(3), 246–258.doi:0.1080/13803395.2012.763113
Meyers J.E., & Meyers K.R. (1995). Rey complex figure test under four different administration procedures. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,9(1), 63–67.doi:10.1080/13854049508402059
Mikadze Yu.V. (2013). Neuropsychology of childhood: study guide. St. Petersburg, Piter, 288.
Osterreith P.A. (1944). La test de copie d'une figure complexe. Archives de Psychologie,30,206–356.
Polonskaya N.N. (2007). Neuropsychological diagnosis of children of primary school age: manual for higher school. Moscow, Akademiya, 192.
Rey A. (1941). L'examen psychologie dan les cas d'encéphalopathie traumatique (Les problèmes). Archives de Psychologie, 28, 215–285.
Semago N.Ya., & Semago M.M. (2007).The diagnostic kit of the psychologist: manual. Moscow, APKiPRO RF, 128.
Semenovich A.V. (2013). Introduction to the neuropsychology of childhood: study guide. Moscow, Genesis, 319.
Shmelev A.G. (2013). Practical testing. Testing in education, applied psychology and personnel management. Moscow, Maska, 688.
Simernitskaya E.G. (1982). On the subject and specifics of child neuropsychology. A.R. In E.D. Chomskoy, L.S. Tsvetkova, & B.V.Zeigarnik (eds.) [Luriya i sovremennaya psikhologiya: sbornik statey pamyati A.R. Lurii].Moscow, Izdatelstvo Moskovskovskogo Universiteta, 110–118.
Stern R.A., Singer E.A., Duke L.M., Singer N.G., Morey C.E., Daughtrey E.W., & Kaplan E. (1994.) The Boston qualitative scoring system for the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure: Description and interrater reliability. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 8(3), 309–322.doi:10.1080/13854049408404137
Strauss E., & Spreen O. (1990). A comparison of the Rey and Taylor figures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 5(4), 417–420.doi:10.1093/arclin/5.4.417
Strauss E., Sherman E.M.S., & Spreen O. (2006). A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press,1240.
Taylor E.M. (1959). Psychological Appraisal of Children with Cerebral Defects. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 499.doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674367494
Taylor L.B. (1969). Localisation of cerebral lesions by psychological testing. Clinical Neurosurgery, 16, 269–287.doi:10.1093/neurosurgery/16.CN_suppl_1.269
Taylor L.B. (1979). Psychological assessment of neurosurgical patients. (Eds.) T. Rasmussen, & R. Marino. Functional Neurosurgery. New York: Raven Press, 165–180.
Tombaugh T.N., & Hubley A.M. (1991). Four studies comparing the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor complex figures. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,13(4), 589–599.doi:10.1080/01688639108401073
Tremblay M.P., Potvin O., Callahan B.L., Belleville S., Gagnon J.F., Caza N., Ferland G., Hudon C., & Macoir J. (2015). Normative data for the Rey-Osterrieth and the Taylor complex figure tests in Quebec-French people. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 30(1), 78–87.doi:10.1093/arclin/acu069
Tsvetkova L.S. (2000). Methods of neuropsychological diagnosis of children. Moscow, Pedagogicheskoe obshchestvo Rossii, 128.
Vingerhoets G., Lannoo E., & Wolters M. (1998). Comparing the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor Complex Figures: Empirical data and meta-analysis. Psychologica Belgica,38(2), 109–119.
Wasserman L.I., & Cherednikova T.V. (2013). The non-verbal technique “The complex figure” of Ray-Osterrit and its psycho-diagnostic value for the qualification of the neurocognitive deficit. [Sibirskiy Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal],49, 13–25.
Wasserman L.I., & T.V. Cherednikova (2011). Psychological diagnostics of neurocognitive deficiency: Restructuring and approbation of the Ray-Osterrit technique “Complex figure”: methodical recommendations. St. Petersburg, 68.
Yamashita H. (2006). Comparability of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure, the Taylor Complex Figure, and the Modified Taylor Complex Figure in a normal sample of Japanese speakers. PsychologicalReports, 99(2),531–534. doi:10.2466/pr0.99.2.531-534

To cite this article:

Copied to Clipboard

Copy