Line Bisection Test

Overview

For the purposes of this review, we conducted a literature search to identify all relevant publications on the psychometric properties of the Line Bisection Test. The test has been evaluated in many studies for its criterion validity, resulting in evidence of its strong psychometric properties in comparison to other paper-and-pencil tests (Menon & Korner-Bitensky, 2004).

Reliability

Internal consistency.
No evidence.

Test-retest.
Schenkenberg et al. (1980) examined the test-retest reliability test-retest reliability, ranging from r = 0.84 to r = 0.93.

Similarly, Chen-Sea and Henderson (1994) reported an excellent test-retest reliability of r = 0.93 for the Line Bisection Test.

Kinsella, Packer, Ng, Olver, and Stark (1995) found adequate test-retest reliability for the Line Bisection Test (Pearson r = 0.64).

Bailey, Riddoch and Crome (2004) examined the test-retest reliability of the Line Bisection Test in elderly patients with stroke (85 patients with neglect and 83 patients without neglect). Patients repeated the test within the hour. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was excellent for patients with neglect (ICC = 0.97).

Validity

Construct

Marsh and Kersel (1993) examined the Star Cancellation Test negative correlation (r = -0.40). The correlation is negative because a high score on the Line Bisection Test indicates USN, however a score close to 0 on the Star Cancellation Test indicates the absence of USN.

Egelko et al. (1988) correlated Line Bisection Test scores with mean CT-scan damage, and CT-scan damage of temporal lobe, parietal lobe, and occipital lobe. All correlations were found to be adequate (r = -0.44, -0.59, -0.37, and -0.42, respectively).

Friedman (1990) examined whether the Line Bisection Test correlated with functional outcome in 82 elderly patients within 14 days of a non-lacunar stroke. At discharge assessment, patients with impaired line bisection had poorer functional outcome than those with normal line bisection as measured by Barthel Index scores, walking speed and discharge destination. When subjects with impaired line bisection were divided into two groups according to line bisection score, the severely impaired had worse functional outcome than the mildly impaired.

Convergent.
Agrell, Dehlin, and Dahlgren (1997) compared the performance of 57 elderly patients with stroke on 5 different tests for visuo-spatial neglect (Star Cancellation, Line Crossing, Line Bisection, Clock Drawing Task and Copy A Cross). The Line Bisection Test had an excellent correlation with Albert’s Test (r = 0.85) and correlated adequately with the Star Cancellation Test (r = -0.33).

Bailey, Riddoch, and Crome (2000) administered the Line Bisection Test and the Baking Tray Task to 107 patients with right or left sided brain damage and 43 age-matched controls. The Baking Tray Task had an excellent correlation with the Line Bisection Test (r = -0.66). This correlation is negative because a high score on the Line Bisection Test indicates the presence of USN, whereas a high score on the Baking Tray Task indicates normal performance.

Binder, Marshall, Lazer, Benjamin, and Mohr (1992) compared the performance on line bisection with that on Letter Cancellation in a group of 34 patients with right-sided brain damage. They found no significant correlation (r = 0.39) between the scores in the two tests.

Similarly, Schubert and Spatt (2001) found that in 20 patients with right hemisphere stroke, no significant correlation between the Line Bisection Test and the Star Cancellation Test were found (r = 0.48). Furthermore, 5 patients with impaired performance on one of the tests were within the normal range on the other one.

Ishiai, Sugishita, Ichikawa, Gono, and Watabiki (1993) examined the construct validity of the Clock Drawing Test and found that it had a poor correlation with the Line Bisection Test (r = 0.05).

Known groups.
Schenkenberg et al. (1980) reported that Line Bisection Test performance can discriminate between patients with right-hemisphere lesions and patients with diffuse lesions, patients with left-hemisphere lesions, and hospital controls.

Criterion

Bailey, Riddoch, and Crome (2000) found that when the Line Bisection Test was compared to other cancellation tests, the sensitivity of the test for detecting visuo-spatial neglect in elderly patients with stroke was 76.4%.

Responsiveness

No evidence.

References
  • Agrell, B. M., Dehlin, O. I., Dahlgren, C. J. (1997). Neglect in elderly stroke patients: a comparison of five tests. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci, 51(5), 295-300.
  • Axenfeld, D. (1894). Eine einfache Methode Hemianopsie zu constatiren. Neurol Centralbl, 437-438.
  • Bailey, M. J., Riddoch, M. J., Crome, P. (2000). Evaluation of a test battery for hemineglect in elderly stroke patients for use by therapists in clinical practice. NeuroRehabilitation, 14, 139-150.
  • Bailey, M. J., Riddoch, M. J., Crome, P. (2004). Test-retest stability of three tests for unilateral visual neglect in patients with stroke: Star Cancellation, Line Bisection, and the Baking Tray Task. Neurophsychological Rehabilitation, 14(4), 403-419.
  • Barton, J. J. S., Black, S. E. (1998). Line bisection in hemianopia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 64, 660-662.
  • Binder, J., Marshall, R., Lazar, R., Benjamin, J., Mohr, J. P. (1992). Distinct syndromes of hemineglect. Archiv Neurology, 49, 1187-1194.
  • Chen-Sea, M. J., Henderson, A. (1994). The reliability and validity of visuospatial inattention tests with stroke patients. Occup Ther Int, 1, 36-48.
  • Egelko, S., Gordon, W. A., Hibbard, M. R., Diller, L., Lieberman, A., Holliday, R., Ragnarsson, K., Shaver, M. S., Orazem, J. (1988). Relationship among CT scans, neurological exam, and neuropsychological test performance in right-brain-damaged stroke patients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 10, 539-564.
  • Ferber, S., Karnath, H. O. (2001). How to assess spatial neglect–Line Bisection or Cancellation Tests? J Clin Expl Neuropsychol, 23, 599-607.
  • Friedman, P. J. (1990). Spatial neglect in acute stroke: the Line Bisection Test. Scand J Rehabil Med, 22, 101-106.
  • Ishiai,S., Sugishita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gono, S., Watabiki, S. (1993). Clock-drawing test and unilateral spatial neglect. Neurology. 43, 106-110.
  • Kinsella, G., Packer, S., Ng, K., Olver, J., Stark, R. (1995). Continuing issues in the assessment of neglect. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 5(3), 239-258.
  • Liepmann, H., Kalmus, E. (1900). Ãœber einer Augenma beta störung beu Hemianopikern. Berlin Klin Wochenschr, 38, 838-842.
  • Marsh, N. V., Kersel, D. A. (1993). Screening tests for visual neglect following stroke. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 245-257.
  • Menon, A., Korner-Bitensky, N. (2004). Evaluating unilateral spatial neglect post stroke: Working your way through the maze of assessment choices. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(3), 41-66.
  • Parton, A., Malhotra, P., Husain, M. (2004). Hemispatial neglect. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 75, 13-21.
  • Plummer, P., Morris, M. E., Dunai, J. (2003). Assessment of unilateral neglect. Phys Ther, 83(8), 732-740.
  • Schenkenberg, T., Bradford, D. C., Ajax, E. T. (1980). Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurological impairment. Neurology. 30, 509-517.
  • Schubert, F., Spatt, J. (2001). Double dissociations between neglect tests: Possible relation to lesion site. Eur Neurol, 45, 160-164.
  • Wilson, B. A., Cockburn, J., Halligan, P. W. (1987). Behavioural Inattention Test. Titchfield, Hants, England: Thames Valley Test Company Ltd.