A Normative Study on the Brief Neuropsychological Cognitive Examination (BNCE) on

Individuals 90-years-old and Over

John M. Czaplewski, M.A.

W
A Clinical Research Project
IE
Presented to the faculty of the Chicago School of Professional Psychology – Los Angeles
EV
In partial fulfillment of

The requirements for the degree of

PR

Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology

March 7th, 2019

 ProQuest Number: 27828505

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
EV
ProQuest 27828505

Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All Rights Reserved.

PR

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 A Normative Study on the Brief Neuropsychological Cognitive Examination (BNCE) on

Individuals 90-years-old and Over

A Clinical Research Project by John Czaplewski, directed and approved by the candidate’s

Clinical Research Project Committee, was approved by the faculty of the Chicago School of

Professional Psychology, Los Angeles, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of

W
Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology.
IE
John M. Czaplewski, M.A.
EV

March 7th, 2019

Approved By:
PR

_______________________________________
Eric Johnson, Psy.D.
Program Dean, Clinical Psychology Program

Clinical Research Project Committee:

______________________________________
Deborah Lewis, Ph.D. ABPP
Committee Chair

_____________________________________
Eric Johnson, Psy.D.
Committee Member

___________________________________
Date

ii
 Acknowledgments

The process of earning a doctorate and writing a dissertation is long and arduous—and it

is certainly not done singlehandedly. I would be remiss to not mention and sincerely thank Dr.

Deborah Lewis, my professor, mentor, and dissertation chair. Without her help, advice,

experience, and encouragement, this research and dissertation would not have happened. I would

also like to thank the other member of my dissertation committee, Dr. Eric Johnson. His insight,

feedback, and advice were influential and essential throughout the dissertation conceptualization

and writing process. I would also like to thank Mr. Patrick Farrell, statistician. Mr. Farrell has

W
helped teach me the methodology to carry out and present the research as clearly as possible. It

was a privilege and honor to work with him.

IE
Finally, I would like to thank my family for sacrificing so much during this process. My

family members have all been unfailingly supportive, encouraging, and tough. Without their
EV

love, prayers, and support it would not have been possible for me to achieve my educational

goals. I wish there was room on my diploma to write the names of my “supportive cast,” my
PR

parents and siblings: Mark Czaplewski, Rita Czaplewski, Rachel Rager, and Bridget Thurman.

iii
 Abstract

The Brief Neuropsychological Cognitive Examination (BNCE; Tonkonogy, 1997) was

designed for use by psychologists as a preliminary clinical evaluation to assess executive

functioning, visual gnosis, language, and memory. This study aims to establish normative data

for individuals 90-years-old and over, using the BNCE, a common clinical screening tool used to

identify deficits in patients with primary psychiatric disorders, brain injuries, and neurological

impairments. The BNCE has not been standardization for individuals over the age of 90.

Developing normative data age-sensitive to the very old population is critical. It was

hypothesized there would be a significant difference in total scores of individuals 90-years of age

W
and older and those of the current normative data (up to age 89). It also was hypothesized
IE
education, but not gender, will influence total scores on the BNCE. Results support the

researcher’s hypotheses that normative data for subjects the age of 90 and over is different than
EV
existing normative data (up to age 89) and that education, but not gender, significantly

influenced total scores on the BNCE.

PR

iv
 Table of Contents

Figures........................................................................................................................................... vii

Tables ........................................................................................................................................... viii

Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 1
The Significance of the Study ..................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 2: Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 3

Age Discrimination ..................................................................................................................... 3
Ageism in Health Care ................................................................................................................ 4

W
Importance of Neuropsychological Evaluations ......................................................................... 6
Evaluation Process and Cognitive Domains of Common Neurodegenerative Diseases ........ 7
BNCE Description ...................................................................................................................... 8
IE
Psychometric Properties.............................................................................................................. 9
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 10
EV
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 12
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 1. ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2. ................................................................................................................................ 13
PR

Figure 3. ................................................................................................................................ 13
Materials ................................................................................................................................... 14
Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 14
Test Scoring .............................................................................................................................. 15
Data Processing and Analysis ................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................... 17

Restatement of Purpose............................................................................................................. 17
Results ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 1 .................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2 .................................................................................................................................. 18
Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 18

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ....................................................... 20

Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 20

v
 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 20
Future Research and Practical Applications ............................................................................. 21
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 21
Conflicts of Interest................................................................................................................... 22

References ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1: List of Neurocognitive Tests Normative Age Range ............................................... 27

W
IE
EV
PR

vi
 Figures

Figure 1: Mean and standard deviation of participants age………………………………...…..16

Figure 2: Age frequencies……. ………………………………………………………………. 16

Figure 3: Highest level of education completed……………….....…………………………… 16

W
IE
EV
PR

vii

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.