Status of Occupational Therapists on Unilateral Neglect Test Tools Usage and Symptom Classification.
10.18857/jkpt.2017.29.5.271
- Author:
Woo Hyuk JANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Science, Kangwon National University, Samcheok, Korea. wlqtksek@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Unilateral neglect;
Egocentric neglect;
Allocentric neglect;
Line bisection test
- MeSH:
Classification*;
Education;
Education, Continuing;
Follow-Up Studies;
Recognition (Psychology);
Surveys and Questionnaires
- From:
Journal of Korean Physical Therapy
2017;29(5):271-275
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the current status of the use of neglect test tools and the awareness for egocentric neglect (EN) and allocentric neglect (AN). METHODS: A survey questionnaire was distributed to occupational therapists attending continuing education at the Daegu-Gyeongbuk branch on April 16. A total 143 responses were collected, and with the exception of 5 incomplete responses, 138 of them were analyzed. RESULTS: The most commonly used unilateral neglect test tools were the line bisection test (86 responses, 62.3%), cancellation test (35 responses, 25.4%), copy and drawing test (7 responses, 5.1%). In a follow-up survey of 86 respondents who used line bisection tests as the most commonly used test, the majority (82 responses, 95.3%2) were found to use the 20-line test paper. In question about the familiarity and education experience for test manual, only 20 responses (23.2%) and 3 responses (3.5%) answered ‘Yes’. In a question about the experience of a manual and the article for the manual, 25 responses (29.1%) answered ‘Yes’. In the question regarding the separation of EN and AN on the unilateral neglect test, 44 responses (31.9%) were ‘distinction’ and 94 responses (68.1%) were ‘no distinction’. CONCLUSION: Information on the guidance and interpretation of the line bisection test is lacking and the concept of EN and AN was insufficient.
