Results

Results
RESULTS
This chapter contains the detailed analysis done to test
the hypothesis of the study. The description of analysis also
mentioned in this chapter. Mainly the analysis done in three
phases first one to see the profile of alcohol dependent and
health controls on various parameters of personality obtained
through Exners Comprehensive system and second to see the
neuropsychological profile and the finally to see the relation
between neuropsychology and personality.
Appropriate
statistics
were
used
for
analyzing
the
observation or data as discussed in the previous chapter. The

analysis and interpretations were done in the following order:
1.
Personality
comparison
of
patients
with
alcohol
dependence and healthy controls

2.
Comparison of neuropsychological performance by alcohol
dependence and health controls

3.
Correlation between neuropsychological functions and
personality among alcohol dependent patients.

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological
Functions In Alcohol Dependence Patients
Results
4.
Discriminant
factors
of
personality
between
alcohol
dependent patients and healthy controls

5.
Discriminant
neuropsychological
functions
between
patients with alcohol dependence and healthy controls.
1.Personality comparison of patients with

alcohol dependence and healthy controls
TABLE 1.1
Descriptive Statistics for Alcohol Dependent Patients and

Healthy Controls on Various Rorschach Variables
Variables
R
W
D
Dd
S
DQ+
DQo
DQv
DQv/+
FQx+
FQxo
FQxu
Healthy
Controls
Mean
SD
28.69
3.92
7.35
0.29
11.60
3.78
1.56
2.27
1.33
1.96
6.37
2.16
14.20
5.42
0.39
0.47
0.37
0.43
0.93
0.82
15.76
3.43
3.51
1.53
ADS
Mean
24.21
8.17
10.32
1.50
2.21
4.67
13.46
2.64
1.48
0.16
11.42
4.56
SD
7.08
4.18
4.20
3.51
2.76
2.25
6.50
1.84
0.72
0.48
4.79
2.84
FQx-
1.60
1.29
3.8
2.79
3.46
1.18
2.32
2.77
3.914
1.383
1.602
0.101
1.838
3.854
0.618
8.378
9.359
5.730
5.209
2.301
6
5.061
0
2.677
0.000
0.169
0.112
0.919
0.069
0.000
0.538
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.024
0.000
0.009

FM
3.65
1.94
3.56
2.51
1.04
0.66
1.28
1.76
FC
3.95
2.11
1.53
1.26
CF
2.41
1.72
1.87
1.76
0.14
0.23
0.26
0.98
Cn
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.12
Sum Color
6.21
2.82
4.61
2.17
WSum C
4.42
1.99
3.70
2.94
Sum C
1.65
1.68
1.27
1.84
Sum T
0.90
0.27
1.20
1.31
Sum V
0.40
0.83
0.70
0.59
3
0.200
6
0.902
8
6.962
9
1.551
6
0.842
9
1.178
5
3.179
6
1.434
1
1.078
4
1.586
0
2.083
1
Results
0.841
0.368
0.000
0.124
0.401
0.241
0.002
0.155
0.284
0.116
0.040

Results
Table 1.1 Cont
Variables
Sum Y
Healthy
Controls
Mean
SD
0.75
0.19
ADS
Mean
1.71
SD
1.22
Sum
Shading
Fr + rF
3.64
2.56
4.80
3.74
0.23
0.68
0.72
1.27
FD
1.06
1.15
0.89
1.30
(2)
7.48
2.74
6.81
3.25
3r + (2)/R
0.59
0.21
0.49
0.81
0.46
0.36
0.67
0.82
Fm + m
4.73
1.60
5.47
3.31
EA
7.99
2.06
6.81
4.27
es
7.58
3.76
11.11
5.84
D Score
Adj D
a (active)
0.38
0.02
6.36
1.31
1.04
2.53
-1.00
-0.62
5.23
1.84
1.65
3.63
p
(passive)
Ma
2.53
1.66
3.65
2.35
2.82
2.22
1.44
1.72
Mp
1.09
0.81
1.24
1.56
Intellect
1.43
1.07
2.29
2.70
10.56
4.00
10.59
5.49
Zd
Blends
0.84
5.26
3.24
2.09
-1.42
4.48
4.50
2.59
Blends/R
0.28
0.14
0.30
0.13
Zf
5.497
8
1.809
8
2.405
1
0.692
6
1.114
5
0.845
0
1.658
1
1.423
3
1.760
0
3.593
7
0.000
1.805
8
2.752
6
3.474
7
0.603
4
2.093
8
0.031
2
0.074
1.657
2
0.740
0.101
0.073
0.018
0.490
0.268
0.400
0.101
0.158
0.082
0.000
0.007
0.001
0.548
0.040
0.975
0.461

ColShdBld
Afr
0.56
0.83
0.76
1.03
0.69
0.29
0.54
0.26
Popular
6.18
1.63
4.82
2.00
XA%
0.76
0.08
0.72
0.20
WDA%
0.60
0.17
0.75
0.08
X+%
0.64
0.21
0.48
0.13
X-%
0.08
0.08
0.16
0.10
Xu%
0.16
0.10
0.34
0.14
Isolate/R
0.23
0.14
0.27
0.28
3.24
1.66
2.26
1.65
(H)
1.03
0.94
1.25
1.31
Hd
0.69
0.61
0.89
1.78
(Hd)
0.19
0.49
0.35
0.56
Hx
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.47
5.37
2.72
7.07
3.84
(A)
0.43
0.51
0.24
0.45
Ad
2.04
0.89
2.53
1.88
(Ad)
0.06
0.25
0.07
0.19
An
0.67
0.72
0.78
1.43
Art
0.83
0.71
1.52
1.76
2
1.069
1
2.723
2
3.727
2
1.313
1
5.645
3
4.580
8
4.417
3
7.398
0
0.903
5
2.960
7
0.964
8
0.751
6
1.520
4
3.610
8
2.554
5
1.975
3
1.665
8
0.225
2
0.485
8
2.570
9
Results
0.288
0.008
0.000
0.192
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.369
0.004
0.337
0.454
0.132
0.000
0.012
0.051
0.099
0.822
0.628
0.012

Results
Table 1.1 Cont.
Variables
Ay
Healthy
Controls
Mean
SD
0.30
0.46
ADS
Mean
0.18
SD
0.48
Bl
0.08
0.35
0.27
0.37
Bt
2.32
1.71
1.60
1.83
Cg
0.83
0.84
1.09
1.78
Cl
0.52
0.85
0.53
0.76
Ex
0.41
0.53
0.92
0.56
Fi
0.43
0.73
0.44
0.81
Food
0.20
0.41
1.23
0.70
Ge
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.50
Hh
0.82
0.67
1.04
1.18
Ls
0.67
0.76
0.75
1.29
Na
0.58
0.72
1.07
1.29
Sc
0.90
0.78
0.74
1.35
Sx
0.34
1.05
0.52
1.01
Xy
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.49
DV
0.61
0.75
0.78
1.09
INCOM
0.25
0.45
0.87
0.56
DR
0.21
0.58
0.52
0.56
FABCOM
0.25
0.47
0.44
0.76
1.276
3
2.637
9
2.032
7
0.934
1
0.062
0
4.677
1
0.064
8
8.977
9
5.939
7
1.146
4
0.377
8
2.345
3
0.725
6
0.873
6
3.463
4
0.908
5
6.102
5
2.718
9
1.503
0.205
0.010
0.045
0.353
0.951
0.000
0.948
0.000
0.000
0.254
0.706
0.021
0.470
0.384
0.001
0.366
0.000
0.008
0.140

DV2
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.10
INC2
DR2
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.48
FAB2
0.03
0.24
0.16
0.52
ALOG
0.03
0.26
0.20
0.43
CONTAM
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.29
Sum6 Sp
Sc
Sum6 Sp
Sc2
WSum6
1.53
1.48
3.36
1.24
0.06
0.36
0.43
0.77
2.29
2.46
9.24
7.82
AB
0.11
0.32
0.36
1.76
AG
1.20
0.40
0.77
0.05
COP
2.11
1.82
0.98
1.11
CP
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.18
MOR
0.61
0.92
1.57
1.57
PER
1.11
1.36
0.09
1.01
PSV
0.00
0.15
0.35
0.39
5
0.606
3
3.928
1.473
1
1.605
1
2.392
2
0.487
7
6.701
9
3.078
0
5.994
8
0.988
2
7.542
7
3.748
2
1.178
5
3.730
4
4.257
6
5.922
9
Results
0.546
0.000
0.144
0.112
0.019
0.627
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.325
0.000
0.000
0.241
0.000
0.000
0.000
Table 1.2.

Results
Frequencies and percentages of various structural variables of

Rorschach.
ADS
X2
10 (26)
6 (16)
18 (38)
12 (32)
4 (12)
1.507
.071
7.484
.178
.332
.220
.790
.006
.673
.564
4 (9.52)
1.895
.169
9
(21.43)
3 (7.14)
.298
.585
.154
.695
5
(11.90)
21 (50)
11
(26.19)
0 (0) 2 (4.76)
4
5
(9.52) (11.90)
3
2 (4.76)
(7.14)
2
3 (7.14)
(4.76)
5.263
.022
4.596
.032
2.041
.122
.153
.727
.211
.646
.211
.464
5 (10) 10 (20)
37 (74) 29 (58)
5 (10)
8 (16)
3 (6)
3 (6)
1.961
2.852
.796
.000
.161
.091
.372
1.00
Sl
No
Variables
EB Style
Introversive
8 (16)
Pervasive Intro
9 (18)
Ambitent
7 (14)
Extratensive
18 (36)
Pervasive Extra
8 (16)
Form Quality Deviations
X + %>.89
1
(2.38)
X + % <.70
7
(16.67)
X + %<.61
4
(9.52)
X + % <.50
0 (0)
F + % < .70
Xu%> .20
X %> .15
X %> .20
X %> .30
3
D Score
D Score > 0
D Score = 0
D Score < 0
D Score < 1
Adjusted D Score
Healt
hy
Contr
ols

Results
6
7
8
9
Adj D Score > 0

Adj D Score = 0
Adj D Score < 0
Adj DScore < 1
FC:CF + C Ratio
FC> (CF + C) + 2
8 (16) 13 (26)
30 (60) 21 (42)
7 (14) 12 (24)
5 (10)
4 (8)
1.507
3.241
1.624
.122
.220
.072
.202
.727
15
27 (75)
(71.43)
FC> (CF + C) + 1
5
6
(23.81) (16.67)
(CF + C) > FC + 1
0 (0)
1
(2.78)
(CF + C) > FC + 2 1 (4.76)
2
(5.56)
Zd> +3.0
7 (14) 14 (28)
(Overincorp)
Zd < 3.0
5 (10) 10 (20)
(Underincorp)
HVI Positive
0 (0)
8 (16)
OBS Positive
0 (0)
0 (0)
5.911
.015
.102
.749
1.010
.315
.344
.558
2.954
.086
1.961
.161
8.696
--
.003
--

Results 10
Table 1.2 Cont
Sl
No
Variables
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
SCZI = 6
SCZI = 5
SCZI = 4
DEPI = 7
DEPI = 6
DEPI = 5
CDI = 5
CDI = 4
Lambda> .99
Dd> 3
DQv + DQv/+> 2
S> 2
Sum T = 0
Sum T> 1
3r+ (2)/R< .33
3r+ (2)/R> .44
Fr + rF> 0
PureC> 0
PureC> 1
Afr < .40
Afr < .50
(FM + m) < Sum
Shad
(2AB + Art + Ay) >
5
Populars < 4
Populars > 7
COP = 0
COP> 2
AG= 0
AG> 2
MOR> 2
Lvl 2 Sp.Sc. > 0
Sum6 Sp.Sc. > 6
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Health
y
Contro
ls
0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (4)
0 (0)
2 (4)
5 (10)
4 (8)
12 (24)
1 (2)
10 (20)
4 (8)
14 (28)
9 (18)
3 (6)
6 (12)
0 (0)
1 (2)
4 (8)
2 (4)
ADS
X2
2 (4)
0 (0)
0 (0)
2 (4)
7 (14)
9 (18)
13 (26)
6 (12)
11 (22)
7 (14)
3 (6)
7 (14)
14 (28)
1 (2)
5 (10)
0 (0)
0 (0)
3 (6)
1 (2)
9 (18)
13 (26)
4 (8)
2.041
-1.010
2.041
7.527
5.005
14.943
2.174
2.679
.919
6.353
4.891
.877
1.895
5.236
9.890
3.093
1.099
1.010
7.111
5.741
.709
.153
-3.17
.153
.006
.025
.000
.140
.102
.338
.012
.027
.149
.169
.022
.002
.079
.295
.315
.008
.017
.400
4 (8)
0 (0)
4.167
.041
2 (4)
3 (6)
21 (42)
6 (12)
25 (50)
7 (14)
2 (4)
1 (2)
0 (0)
13 (26)
0 (0)
16 (32)
2 (4)
11 (22)
12 (24)
7 (14)
5 (10)
3 (6)
9.490
3.093
.679
2.174
8.507
1.624
3.053
2.837
3.093
.002
.079
.410
.140
.004
.202
.081
.092
.079

42
43
44
45
Pure H < 2
Pure H = 0
p>a+ 1
Mp > Ma
6 (12)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (8)
9 (18)
3 (6)
0 (0)
7 (14)
.706
3.093
-.919
Results 11
.401
.079
-.338
2.Comparison of neuropsychological
performance by alcohol dependence and
health controls
Table 2.1
Performance of Alcohol Dependents and Healthy Controls on
Tests of verbal and visual memory.
Alcohol
Variables
Dependent
s
Healthy
Controls
17 7.03
1.11
.274
Mean SD
Verbal Memory
Mean SD
14.96
Immediate
Verbal Memory
5.95
11.04
13.60 6.37
1.46
.149
Delayed
Visual Memory
5.96
48.24
53.56 9.43
1.43
.157
Immediate
Visual Memory
15.94
41.52
45.48
.821
.416
20.32
12.96
Delayed

Results 12
The visual and verbal memory functions of both the

groups were studied using story and design recall task of WMS.
The table shows both the healthy controls and alcohol
dependent subjects didnt have any statistically significant
level of difference in these tasks but they do have qualitative
difference in their performance in all of the above tasks.
Table 2.2
Mean score obtained by alcohol dependent patients and
healthy controls on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
Mean SD
List A Trial 1
5 1.23
5.44 1.33
List A Trial 2
6.80 1.76
8.68 1.80
List A Trial 3
8.52 2.02
10.72 2.44
List A Trial 4
9.72 2.51
11.56 2
List A Trial 5
10.64 2.1
12.36 1.91
List B
5.32 1.28
5.80 1.35
Variables
t
1.21
9
3.74
2
3.46
9
2.86
7
3.02
9
1.28

.229
.000
.001
.006
.004
.204
Interference
List A
Immediate
List A Delayed
List A
Recognition
8.08 2.81
10.24 2.47
7.84 3.05
9.96 2.74
12.60 8.96
13.96 1.94
7
2.88
Results 13
.006
5
2.58
.013
3
1.92
.061
Rey Auditory Verbal Fluency Test is considered to be a

gold standard to measure the subjects verbal learning and
memory ability. The test consist of two lists viz list A and list
B to measure the neuropsychological function of learning and
memory.
The comparison of performance between alcohol
dependent patients and healthy controls on this test has been

presented in the above table. It shows that the initiations of
task were done almost equally by both the group.
That is
evident from the scores obtained by alcohol dependents and

healthy controls on List A trial 1 (5 1.23; 5.44 1.33
respectively) and List B interference task (5.32 1.28; 5.80
1.35 respectively). Their performance did not significantly differ
on these two trials indicating the equal initiation of task by
these groups. But as the trials progress the performance on
healthy controls found to be better than the alcohol dependent
patients.
Results 14
It is also found that there is a sudden elevation in the learning

performance by healthy controls soon after the second trial of
administration. But on analyzing the curve of patients with
alcohol dependence the progression of curve is found to be
gradual indicating impairment in learning. As far as the
immediate recall, delayed recall and recognition trials the
health controls out performs the alcohol dependent patients
indicating poor verbal immediate
Figure 2.1
Learning curve obtained by alcohol dependent patients and
healthy controls tested using Rey Auditory Verbal Learning
Test.

Results 15
The figure 4.1 shows the learning curve obtained by the

alcohol dependent patients and healthy controls on the
learning task of Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task. The curve
shows that both the healthy controls and alcohol dependent
patients initiated both the task on same level but in the case
Results 16
learning over trial the healthy controls had an advantage when

comparing
subjects.
with
the
performance
of
alcohol
dependent
Also when the List B task was again reintroduced
after the learning trails both the group initiated on same level,
clearing
indicating the normal level of registration
and
subsequent failure in learning over trail by the alcohol

dependent subjects.
Table 2.3
healthy controls on Digit Span Test (DST).
Variables
Forward
Backward
The
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
Mean SD
6.56 1
7.20 1.63
5.08 1.32
6 1.12
neuropsychological
function
1.67
0
2.65
9
of
.102
.011
attention,
concentration and working memory can be measured using

digit span test forward and backward. In the above task the
alcohol dependent subjects were able to produce a span of
Results 17
6.56 1 for forward task and 5.08 1.32 for backward task. As far
the healthy controls were concerned they were able to produce a
span of 7.20 1.63 and 6 1.12 respectively for forward and
backward task. The analysis shows for their performance in the
forward task is not significant but for the case of backward the
performance by both the group shows a statistically significant, the
alcohol dependent were having deficit in producing as much as span
that the healthy controls has indicating problems in concentration
and working memory.
Table 2.4
healthy controls on Verbal and Category Fluency test.
Variables
Verbal
Fluency
Category
Fluency
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
Mean SD
22.64 7.65
31.36 6.69
38.36 7.70
47.64 9.22
t
4.29
0
3.86
1
.000
.000
In the verbal and category fluency test the average

productivity by the alcohol dependent and healthy controls on
verbal fluency was 22.64 7.765 and 31.36 6.69 and for
Results 18
category fluency 38.36 7.70 and 47.64 9.22 respectively. The

difference in the productivity by both the group are statistically
significant at p 0.01 level.
Table 2.5
healthy controls on Block Design Test.
Variables
Block Design
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
Mean SD
24.16 5.65
29.12 6.62
t
2.84
8
.006
The block drawing test usually administered to find out

the construction ability and a measure for praxis. The obtained
result suggests that the healthy controls were able to do better
than the alcohol dependent patients. The healthy controls
obtained a mean score of 29.12 6.62 and the alcohol
dependent
subjects
took
24.16
5.65
the
difference

was
Results 19
statistically significant at p 0.01(t = 2.848; p = .006) indicating

the poor ability to manipulate visually presented constructional
blocks in a meaningful designs.
Table 2.6
Mean time taken and errors committed by alcohol dependent
patients and healthy controls on Trail Making Test A and B.
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
Mean SD
TMT A Time
1.50 .74
1.01 .74
TMT A Errors
.12 .44
.32 .90
TMT B Time
4.53 2.18
2.86 .90
TMT B Errors
1.33 1.37
.76 1.13
Variables
t
2.78
4
.998
3.52
0
1.60
0
.008
.323
.001
.116
The table 4.5 the analysis of time and error taken by the
healthy controls and alcohol dependent patients were given.
On analyzing the table it is evident that the time taken by the
alcohol dependent patient for both Trail Making A and Trail
Making B is high in comparison with the control group and the

Results 20
difference is statistically significant at p 0.01. In the case of

error qualitatively the committed error by the healthy controls
are lesser than the errors committed by the healthy controls
though the difference between these two groups are not
statistically significant.
Table 2.7
Performance of Alcohol Dependents and Healthy Controls on
Stroop Test
Variables
Stroop Word
Stroop Color
Stroop Color
Word
Stroop
Interference
Alcohol
Healthy
Dependents
Controls
Mean SD
35.96 13.15
23.17 8.29
Mean SD
35.92 9.49
23.83 10.15
39.08 7.07
36.92 6.92
51.24 10.06
49. 84 9.19
.012
.249
1.09
.990
.804
1
.514
.281
.610
The stroop test were scored on the number of words, color

reproduced
by
the
two
groups
of
subjects
and
their
interference rate was also calculated and analyzed. The table

4.6 shows no significant difference between healthy controls
and alcohol dependent patients on this task.
For the

Results 21
production of stroop word and color both the group performed

somewhat similarly. But on qualitative analysis in the case of
color-word and interference the alcohol dependent group
performed poorly then the healthy controls though the
difference is not statistically significant.
3.Correlation between neuropsychological

functions and personality among alcohol
dependent patients
Table 3.1
Relationship between Memory functions and selected
Rorschach Variables in Alcohol Dependent Patients
Variables
D
EA_Adj_es
AB_Art_ay
Con_Se_L
Con_Se_R
SS_Cop
SS_Incom_1
AG_1
Hd_Col
Verbal
memory
Immediat
e
.025
.449*
.536**
-.303
.393
.494*
-.166
-.177
.298
Verbal
Memory
Delayed
Visual
memory
Immediate
Visual
Memory
Delayed
.047
.387
.453*
-.277
.442*
.418*
-.134
-.243
.398*
-.434*
.068
.321
-.199
-.091
.278
-.188
-.471*
.247
-.365
.270
.243
-.471*
.175
.071
-.450*
-.377
.275

Results 22
Art
Ad
Cg
Ls
geo
.496*
.052
.555**
-.589**
-.279
.441*
.071
.567**
-.513**
-.211
.238
.384
.224
-.534**
-.186
.157
.442*
.049
-.582**
-.426*
Table 3.2
Relationship between Learning with various selected Rorschach
Variables in Alcohol Dependent Patients.
Variables
Trial 1
Trial 2
Trial 3
Trial 4
Trial 5
EB_per
EA_es
AB_Art_ay
Con_Se_L
affect_rati
-.483
-.268
.438*
-.182
-.232
-.733
-.087
-.103
-.273
-.369
.581
.028
-.233
-.243
-.238
-.625
.123
-.187
-.272
-.198
WDA_W
WDA_D
IsolateR
AG_1
SS_PHR
Art
.041
.094
-.339
-.049
.267
.
526**
.032
.409*
-.490*
-.170
-.410*
.114
-.132
-.075
.288
-.002
-.410*
.018
-.153
-.079
.111
-.129
-.402*
.208
-.040
-.177
.061
-.087
-.238
.110
.105
-.368
-.508*
*
-.038
.455*
-.216
-.362
.411*
.081
.160
.368
-.334
-.214
.126
.243
-.294
-.259
.226
.338
-.355
-.309
Bt
Cg
Ls
geo
-.036
.262
-.452*
-.560*
*
Interferen
ce
-.742
-.308
.295
.111
-.285
Recall
-.959*
.441*
-.133
-.225
-.451*
Delaye
d
-.897
.478*
-.184
-.516**
-.372
Recognitio
n
-.871
.070
.124
-.173
.115
-.103
.032
-.247
-.319
.442*
.275
-.277
.348
-.283
-.312
.358
-.124
-.276
.226
-.341
-.421*
.259
-.195
.116
-.140
-.426*
-.089
-.173
.035
-.107
.280
-.260
-.215
-.137
.245
-.368
-.524*
*
-.136
.224
-.524**
-.535**
-.398*
.173
-.372
-.042

Results 23
Table 3.3
Relationship between the cognitive function of Attention and
Concentration with various selected Rorschach variables in
Alcohol Dependent Patients
Variable
s
WDA_W
SS_Per
SS_GHR
Art
Bt
Digit Span
Forward
-.100
-.224
.174
-.044
-.401*
Digit Span
Backward
-.578**
-.422*
.413*
-.398*
-.217
Table 3.4
Relationship between Block Design Test performance and on
selected Rorschach Variables in Alcohol Dependent Patients
Variable
s
SS_Cop
Block Design
Test
.419*
Table 3.5
Relationship between Verbal and Category fluency test
performance and selected Rorschach Variables in Alcohol
Dependent Patients

Results 24
Variable
s
Es
affect_r
ati
A
An
Ls
Ex
Verbal
Fluency
-.442*
.417*
Category
Fluency
-.129
.263
-.525*
.417*
.467*
.191
-.244
.058
.041
-.424*
Table 3.6
Relationship between Performance and Time taken by the
Alcohol Dependent Patients with selected Rorschach Variables
Variables
XA_Per
X_MIN_Per
WDA_W
Zsum_Zest
SS_Mor
SS_PHR
SS_GHR
Hd_Col
Hh
Cg
TMT-A Time TMT-A Error

.154
.192
.153
.030
-.187
-.349
-.309
-.406*
.158
-.470*
.413*
.501*
.187
-.421*
-.051
.089
.264
-.103
.469*
.005
TMT- B
Time
-.260
-.323
.480*
-.038
-.139
-.436*
-.463*
-.282
.384
-.295
TMT- B Error
.044
.153
-.055
-.022
-.531**
-.132
-.143
-.260
-.077
-.294
Table 3.7
Relationship between performance of Alcohol Dependent
Patients on Stroop Test and selected Rorschach Variables

Results 25
Variables
Stroop
Word
EB_per
.695
Con_Se_L
.272
WDA_Per
.002
X_PLUS_Per
-.309
XU_Per
.171
SS_Per
.007
SS_PSV
.765
SS_Mor
.263
Ad
.189
Bl
-.272
Stroop
Color
.315
.497**
.128
.113
.014
-.148
.806
-.344
-.420*
.125
Stroop Word Color

.742
.214
.232
.203
.071
-.479*
.925**
.000
-.174
.209
Stroop
Interference
.887*
.148
.342*
.452**
-.583**
-.103
.227
.800**
-.097
.951**
4.Discriminant factors of personality between

alcohol dependent patients and healthy
controls


Results

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Results

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Results

observation or data as discussed in the previous chapter. The

dependence and healthy controls

Comparison of neuropsychological performance by alcohol

dependence and health controls

Correlation between neuropsychological functions and

personality among alcohol dependent patients.

dependent patients and healthy controls

patients with alcohol dependence and healthy controls.

1.Personality comparison of patients with

Descriptive Statistics for Alcohol Dependent Patients and

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Frequencies and percentages of various structural variables of

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Adj D Score > 0

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

The visual and verbal memory functions of both the

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Rey Auditory Verbal Fluency Test is considered to be a

The comparison of performance between alcohol

dependent patients and healthy controls on this test has been

evident from the scores obtained by alcohol dependents and

It is also found that there is a sudden elevation in the learning

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

The figure 4.1 shows the learning curve obtained by the

learning over trial the healthy controls had an advantage when

Also when the List B task was again reintroduced

indicating the normal level of registration

subsequent failure in learning over trail by the alcohol

concentration and working memory can be measured using

In the verbal and category fluency test the average

category fluency 38.36 7.70 and 47.64 9.22 respectively. The

The block drawing test usually administered to find out

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

statistically significant at p 0.01(t = 2.848; p = .006) indicating

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

difference is statistically significant at p 0.01. In the case of

The stroop test were scored on the number of words, color

interference rate was also calculated and analyzed. The table

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

production of stroop word and color both the group performed

3.Correlation between neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

TMT-A Time TMT-A Error

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Stroop Word Color

4.Discriminant factors of personality between

Personality Profile Using Exners Comprehensive System And Related Neuropsychological

Вам также может понравиться