In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final

8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final

1/54

2014

In-depth MOXO test analysis

Stage 2

Eran Sandel

Head of Professional Training


2/54


3/54

A

T

I

H

Attention the ability to locate a target element, evaluate it

properly and respond correctly as instructed.

Timing the ability to respond correctly within the time

allocated for the task.

Impulsiveness acting before thinking, tendency to

respond before fully assessing the situation at hand.

Hyperactivity difficulty in efficient regulation of behavior andin avoiding unnecessary or undesirable actions (unnecessary key

presses, fidgeting, etc.).


4/54


5/54


6/54

50%

30%

15%

5%

0

0.8251.65

( > 0)

(Z 0

0.825-)

(0.825-Z1.65-)

(1.65-


7/54

100-0 errors

90-1 error

84-2 omissions

48-13 omissions


8/54


9/54


10/54


11/54

The behavior of the performance graph for each of the four indices A, T, I, H, between two or more levels is characterized by the

following three parameters: Slope The angle of the performance graph and the x axis

between two different test levels.

Power changes between the Y values of two different test levels(Y).

Frequency The number of points on the performance graph onwhich the slope changed from positive to negative and vice versa

(maxima and minima).

Slope Power(Y) Frequency

Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)Negative (0) Low (10) Low (1)

Negative (


12/54

The principles of analysis are based on the followingfour rules:

Comparison

luctuation

istracters

orrelation

FD

CSlope Power(Y) Frequency

Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)

Negative (


13/54

This principle evaluates the impact of the duration of thetest on the performance graph for all four indices bycomparing the scores in levels 1 and 8 (no distracters)

Three possible results for comparison:

1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power

2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + low power



Negative (


14/54

1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power

3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + low power

DeteriorationY=-20

1. Comparison



Negative (


15/54

Improvement

Y=+40



Negative (


16/54


3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + lowpower

Stability

Y=-8

1. Comparison



Negative (


17/54

Evaluates the frequency and power of changes to the slopeof the performance graph between two subsequent testlevels for all four indices.

Four possible results for fluctuation:

1. Strong Fluctuation high power + med/high frequency.2. Medium Fluctuation medium power + med/high frequency.

3. Low Fluctuation low power + med/high frequency.

4. No Fluctuation low frequency.

Note

In case of medium frequency without three powers of identical

strength, the lowest power will determine the degree of

fluctuation.



Negative (


18/54

1. Strong Fluctuation

high power + med/high frequency.2. Medium Fluctuation medium power + med/high frequency.

3. Low Fluctuation low power + med/high frequency.

4. No Fluctuation low frequency.

0

0

0

0No Fluctuation Fluctuation

2.F

luctuation



Negative (


19/54

Strong Fluctuation0

0

0

Strong-Medium-Strong-Strong-Medium

2.F

luctuation



Negative (


20/54

Medium Fluctuation

Strong-Strong-Medium-Medium

2.F

luctuation



Negative (


21/54

Low Fluctuation00 0



Negative (


22/54

No Fluctuation



Negative (


23/54

Strong Fluctuation

2.F

luctuation

1. Strong Fluctuation high power + med/high frequency.2. Medium Fluctuation medium power + med/high frequency.3. Low Fluctuation low power + med/high frequency.4. No Fluctuation low frequency.



Negative (


24/54


25/54

Evaluates the effect of different types of distracters onthe MOXO performance graph for all four indices:

There are two types of distracter effects:

Type of distracter

compares each of the scores onthe two levels for each distracter type (visual,auditory, combined) with the score in level 1, foreach of the four MOXO indices.

Distracter load

evaluates the effect of thedistracter load on the performance graph for eachof the four MOXO indices.



Negative (20) High(3)

3. Distracters


26/54

Three possible results of the effect of distracter type:

1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power ineach comparison.

2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power ineach comparison.

3. Cannot be determined (CBD) when the conditionsfor improvement/deterioration do not exist.

3. Distracters





27/54

Visual

Auditory

Combined

Y=+40Improvement

Cannot be determined





3. D

istractersThree possible results of the effect of distracter type:1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power in each

comparison.2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in each

comparison.3. Cannot be determined (CBD) when the conditions for

improvement/deterioration do not exist.


28/54

Visual

Auditory

Combined

Deterioration



3. D


comparison2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in each

comparison3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for

improvement/deterioration do not exist





29/54

Visual Auditory Combined

DeteriorationDeteriorationDeterioration

3. D


comparison2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in each

comparison3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for






30/54

Three possible results of the effect of distracter load:

1. Improvement increase between each odd level compared to the even levelthat precedes it (indicated by the slope only)2. Deterioration decrease between each odd level compared to the even level

that precedes it (indicated by the slope only)3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for improvement/deterioration

do not exist

Positive slope

(improvement) x3

3. Distracters





31/54

Three possible results of the effect of distracter load:

1. Improvement increase between each odd level compared to the even levelthat precedes it (indicated by the slope only)2. Deterioration decrease between each odd level compared to the even level

that precedes it (indicated by the slope only)3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for improvement/deterioration

do not exist

3. Distracters

Negative slope

(deterioration) x3





32/54





3. DistractersThree possible results of the effect of distracter load:

1. Improvement increase between each odd level compared to theeven level that precedes it (indicated by the slope only)2. Deterioration decrease between each odd level compared to the

even level that precedes it (indicated by the slope only)3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for



33/54

Evaluates the relationship between the performance graphslopes for two different indices throughout the duration of the

test.

There are two types of correlations between indices:

Correlation between levels 1 and 8 based oncomparison results

General correlation evaluated over all levels of the test




4. Correlation


34/54

Three possible results for correlation between levels 1 and 8:

1. Positive correlation identical slope (including zero-zero)between the two indices

2. Negative correlation inverse slope between two indices

3. Cannot be determined

no positive/negative correlation

Negative correlation




4. Correlation between two indices when

comparing levels 1 and 8


35/54

Positive Correlation












36/54











Negative (


37/54

Three possible results for general correlation

1. Tendency towards positive correlation identical slopesbetween index A and index B for at least 4 of the 7performance graph segments.

2. Tendency towards negative correlation inverse slopesbetween index A and index B for at least 4 of the 7performance graph segments.

3. Cannot be determined no tendency towardspositive/negative correlation

Positive (1 of 7)

Negative (5 of 7)


(1 of 7)



Negative (


38/54

Comparing Timing and Impulsiveness:Positive correlation

tendencyNegative correlation

tendency

4. General Correlation


39/54


Timing vs. Impulsiveness



40/54

Timing vs. HyperactivityNegative correlation

tendency

Positive correlationtendency



41/54

Timing vs. Attention

Negative correlationtendency




42/54

Hyperactivity vs. Impulsiveness





43/54

Impulsiveness vs. Attention





44/54


45/54

Name: John Smith

Age: 9

Gender: Male

Reasons for referral: referred for evaluation by his parents due to

academic, emotional and social difficulties

Questionnaire reports

DSM 4 criteria:

Previous evaluations:____________________________________________Type of treatment/s (if relevant): ________________________________Clinical diagnosis: ______________________________________________

Parent Questionnaireeacher Questionnaire

AttentionHyperactivity/Impulsiveness

AttentionHyperactivity/Impulsiveness

7/91/98/93/9


46/54

Conduct during evaluation:John was accompanied by his mother and parted from her easily. He is a tall,attractive child and his physical development is compatible with his chronologicalage. He is pleasant, polite and shy, but connected well and shared his experiencesat home and at school. He spoke openly about his difficulties at school. Heclaimed that writing was difficult and that he enjoyed reading and mathematics.He dislikes most school subjects except for gym and mathematics. He claims thatschool is difficult because he is very forgetful and that noise in the classroomcaused by talking, yelling and children fidgeting makes it difficult for him to

learn. He prefers to sit at the back of the classroom, in the corner near the

window. After school, he enjoys playing outside with his brother. He told me ingreat detail about the campsite that they built and how they flew airplanes.

MOXO FindingsObservation during testing:The child was cooperative during the test and initially seemed to enjoy the task.

After several minutes, though, he began to complain that it was too difficult andthat he did not want to continue. Intensive persuasion was required to convincehim to proceed. At the end of the test, when asked what he found so difficult, heanswered that it was the monotonous key presses. He also noted that the noisesmade by the distracters bothered him very much.


47/54

Attentiveness Profile: A1T4S4I1H2

Table of cognitive-attentiveness measures per age and gender:

Degree of severityaccording to ADHD norms:


48/54

Performance graph analysis:

1. Comparing levels 1 and 8A - StabilityT- ImprovementI - StabilityH - Stability

Comparing levels 1 and 8:


3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + low power

Rules



Negative (


49/54

2. Fluctuation:

A -

MediumT - MediumI - Low

H - Strong

Fluctuation:

1. Strong fluctuation high power+ med/high frequency2. Medium fluctuation medium power + med/high frequency

3. Low fluctuation low power + med/high frequency

4. No fluctuation low frequency

Rules:



Negative (


50/54

3. Distracters:Visual Auditory Combined Load

A CBD CBD CBD CBDT CBD CBD deteriorated CBD

I CBD CBD CBD CBDH CBD CBD CBD deteriorated

Distracters:

1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power in eachcomparison

2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in eachcomparison

3. Cannot be determining the conditions forimprovement/deterioration do not exist

Rules:



Negative (


51/54

4. CorrelationComparing levels

1 and 8 General

A-T PositiveA-I PositiveA-H NegativeT-I PositiveT-H Negative

I-H Negative

Correlation between 2 indices when comparing levels 1 and 8:

1. Positive correlation (pos-pos, neg-neg, zero-zero)

2. Negative correlation (pos-neg, neg-pos)

3. Cannot be determined (zero-pos/neg, pos/neg zero)

Rules:



Negative (


52/54

4. CorrelationComparing levels General

1 and 8

A-T Positive positiveA-I Positive CBDA-H Negative CBDT-I Positive CBDT-H Negative negativeI-H Negative CBD

General Correlation:

1.Tendency towards positive correlation identical slope between index A and

index B in at least 4 of 7 segments

2.Tendency towards negative correlation reverse slope between index A andindex B in at least 4 of 7 segments

3.Cannot be determined no tendency towards negative/positive correlation

Rules:



Negative (


53/54

GeneralCompare levels 1 and 8

Tendency to positivePositiveA -T

CBDPositiveA-I

CBDNegativeA-H

CBDPositiveT-I

Tendency to negativeNegativeT-H

CBDNegativeI-H

LoadCombinedAuditoryVisual

CBDCBDCBDCBDA

CBDDeterioratedCBDCBDT

CBDCBDCBDCBDI

DeterioratedCBDCBDCBDH

1. Comparing levels 1 and 8:

A Stability

T Improvement

I

StabilityH - Stability

Summary

2. Fluctuation:

A Medium

T Medium

I Low

H - Strong

Exhaustion was not displayed over time, andthe timing score even improved.

Strong fluctuation in any index generallyindicates internal instability. Fluctuation in thehyperactivity index can indicate emotionaldifficulties.

Combined distracters cause slower responsetime and distracter overload caused the

hyperactivity score to deteriorate

The negative correlation between T-H can

indicate increased fidgeting which causes animprovement in timing and vice versa

3. Distracters:

4. Correlation:


54/54

Thanks for your Attention

Documents

In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final