SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sloan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pentland, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Sloan, R.
Right arrow Articles by Pentland, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Routine screening of brain-damaged patients: a comparison of the Rivermead Perceptual Assessment Battery and the Chessington Occupational Therapy Neurological Assessment Battery

RL Sloan

Neurorehabilitation Unit, Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

C. Downie

Neurorehabilitation Unit, Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

J. Hornby

Neurorehabilitation Unit, Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

B. Pentland

Neurorehabilitation Unit, Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

Thirty-two brain damaged patients undergoing rehabilitation were assessed independently by the Rivermead Perceptual Assessment Battery (RPAB) and the Chessington Occupational Therapy Neurological Assessment Battery (COTNAB). The detection of perceptual deficits was similar with both batteries. The RPAB was quicker and slightly easier to use but the COTNAB was considered to give considerably more information. This led us to conclude that the COTNAB was the preferred battery for routine use in our clinical setting. Patients found both batteries acceptable with no particular preference for one over the other.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 5, No. 4, 265-272 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559100500402
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




Advertisement