in-depth moxo training - stage 2- final
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
2/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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.).
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
4/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
5/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
6/54
50%
30%
15%
5%
0
0.8251.65
( > 0)
(Z 0
0.825-)
(0.825-Z1.65-)
(1.65-
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
7/54
100-0 errors
90-1 error
84-2 omissions
48-13 omissions
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
8/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
9/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
10/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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 (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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 (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
15/54
Improvement
Y=+40
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
16/54
1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power
3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + lowpower
Stability
Y=-8
1. Comparison
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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.
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
19/54
Strong Fluctuation0
0
0
Strong-Medium-Strong-Strong-Medium
2.F
luctuation
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
20/54
Medium Fluctuation
Strong-Strong-Medium-Medium
2.F
luctuation
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
21/54
Low Fluctuation00 0
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
22/54
No Fluctuation
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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.
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
24/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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.
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
3. Distracters
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
27/54
Visual
Auditory
Combined
Y=+40Improvement
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
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.
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
28/54
Visual
Auditory
Combined
Deterioration
Cannot be determined
Cannot be determined
3. D
istractersThree possible results of the effect of distracter type:1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power in each
comparison2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in each
comparison3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for
improvement/deterioration do not exist
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
29/54
Visual Auditory Combined
DeteriorationDeteriorationDeterioration
3. D
istractersThree possible results of the effect of distracter type:1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power in each
comparison2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power in each
comparison3. Cannot be determined when the conditions for
improvement/deterioration do not exist
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
32/54
Cannot be determined
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
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
improvement/deterioration do not exist
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
4. Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
4. Correlation between two indices when
comparing levels 1 and 8
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
35/54
Positive Correlation
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
4. Correlation between two indices when
comparing levels 1 and 8
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (20) High(3)
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
36/54
Cannot be determined
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
4. Correlation between two indices when
comparing levels 1 and 8
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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)
Cannot be determined
(1 of 7)
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
38/54
Comparing Timing and Impulsiveness:Positive correlation
tendencyNegative correlation
tendency
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
39/54
Cannot be determined
Timing vs. Impulsiveness
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
40/54
Timing vs. HyperactivityNegative correlation
tendency
Positive correlationtendency
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
41/54
Timing vs. Attention
Negative correlationtendency
Positive correlationtendency
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
42/54
Hyperactivity vs. Impulsiveness
Negative correlationtendency
Positive correlationtendency
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
43/54
Impulsiveness vs. Attention
Negative correlationtendency
Positive correlationtendency
4. General Correlation
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
44/54
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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.
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
47/54
Attentiveness Profile: A1T4S4I1H2
Table of cognitive-attentiveness measures per age and gender:
Degree of severityaccording to ADHD norms:
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
48/54
Performance graph analysis:
1. Comparing levels 1 and 8A - StabilityT- ImprovementI - StabilityH - Stability
Comparing levels 1 and 8:
1. Improvement positive slope + med/high power2. Deterioration negative slope + med/high power
3. Stability positive/negative/zero slope + low power
Rules
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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:
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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:
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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:
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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:
Slope Power(Y) Frequency
Positive (>0) Low (10) Low (1)
Negative (
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
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:
-
8/10/2019 In-Depth MOXO Training - Stage 2- Final
54/54
Thanks for your Attention