Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:15:41.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Categorization and validation of handedness using latent class analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

Milan Dragovic
Milan Dragovic*
Affiliation:
Center for Clinical Research in Neuropsychiatry, School of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
*
Milan Dragovic, Center for Clinical Research in Neuropsychiatry, Private Mail Bag no. 1, Claremont, WA 6010, Australia. E-mail: milan@ccrn.uwa.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

A view that handedness is not a dichotomous, i.e. left–right, phenomenon is shared by majority of researchers. However, there are different opinions about the exact number of hand-preference categories and criteria that should be used for their classification.

Objectives:

This study examined hand-preference categories using the latent class analysis (LCA) and validated them against two external criteria (i.e. hand demonstration test and a series of arbitrary cut-off points).

Method:

The Edinburgh Handedness Inventory was applied to 354 individuals randomly selected from the general population, and the obtained data were analysed using the LatentGOLD software.

Results:

Three discrete hand-preference clusters were identified, i.e. left-, right- and mixed-handed category. Further subdivision of hand-preference clusters resulted in a non-parsimonious subcategorization of individuals. There was a good agreement between the LCA-based classification and classification based on hand-preference demonstration tests. The highest agreement between the LCA model and the different types of arbitrary classification criteria ranged between 0 ± 50 and 0 ± 70 of the laterality quotient.

Conclusions:

The study findings supported the view that handedness is not a bimodal phenomenon. However, definitions and subcategorizations of mixed-handedness using the cut-off points that are outside of the recommended range may lead to misclassification of cases. It is hoped that the categorization and validation of handedness developed in the context of this study will make future research in this area less dependent on arbitrary values and criteria.

Keywords

hand preferencehandednessmixed-handednesslateralizationlatent class anlaysis
Type
Original Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 212 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Blackwell Munksgaard

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annett, M. Left, right, hand and brain: the right shift theory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd, 1985. Google Scholar
Corballis, M. The lopsided ape: evolution of the generative mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Google Scholar
McManus, IC. Right- and left-hand skill: failure of the right shift model. Br J Psychol 1985;76: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McManus, IC. Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002. Google Scholar
Bakan, P. Are left-handers brain damaged? New Scientist 1975;67: 200–202. Google Scholar
Bakan, P. Nonright-handedness and the continuum of reproductive casualty. In: Coren, S, ed. Left-handedness: behavioural implications and anomalies. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers BV, 1990: 33–74. Google Scholar
Schwartz, M. Left-handedness and prenatal complications. In: Coren, S, ed. Left-handedness: behavioural implications and anomalies. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers BV, 1990: 75–97. Google Scholar
Geschwind, N, Behan, OP. Laterality, hormones, and immunity. In: Geschwind, N, Galaburda, MA, eds. Cerebral dominance: the biological foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984: 211–224. Google ScholarPubMed
Green, MF, Satz, P, Smith, C, Nelson, L. Is there atypical handedness in schizophrenia? J Abnorm Psychol 1989;98: 57–61.DOI: 10.1037//0021-843X.98.1.57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, P, Green, MF. Atypical handedness in schizophrenia: some methodological and theoretical issues. Schizophr Bull 1999;25: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annett, M. A classification of hand preference by association analysis. Br J Psychol 1970;61: 303–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, M, Murphy, K. Cluster analysis reveals at least three, and possibly five distinct handedness groups. Neuropsychologia 1992;30: 373–380.DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(92)90110-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giotakos, O. Narrow and broad definition of mixed-handedness in male psychiatric patients. Percept Mot Skills 2001;93: 631–638.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lishman, WA, McMeekan, ERL. Hand preference patterns in psychiatric patients. Br J Psychiatry 1976;129: 158–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orr, KGD, Cannon, M, Gilvarry, M, Jones, PB, Murray, RM. Schizophrenic patients and their first-degree relatives show an excess of mixed-handedness. Schizophr Res 1999;39: 167–176.DOI: 10.1016/S0920-9964(99)00071-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oldfield, RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971;9: 97–113.DOI: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shimizu, A, Endo, M. Handedness and familial sinistrality in a Japanese student population. Cortex 1983;19: 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, DVM. Handedness and developmental disorder. London: Mac Keith Press , 1990. Google Scholar
Cannon, M, Byrne, M, Cassidy, Bet al. Prevalence and correlates of mixed-handedness in schizophrenics. Psychiatry Res 1995;59: 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, S, Clarke M, Gervin M et al. Determinants of neurological dysfunction in first episode schizophrenia. Psychol Med 2000;30: 1433–1441 .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, PJ, Dalton, R, Fleminger, JJ, Lishman, WA. Differences between two studies of hand preference in psychiatric patients. Br J Psychiatry 1982;140: 166–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermunt, JK, Magidson, J. Latent class cluster analysis. In: Hagenaars, JA, McCutcheon, AL, eds. Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 89–106. Google Scholar
McCutcheon, AL. Latent class analysis, Sage University Paper. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1987. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, DVM. The measurement of hand preference: a validation study comparing three groups of right-handers. Br J Psychol 1996;87: 269–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermunt, JK, Magidson, J. Latent GOLD 2.0 Users Guide. Belmont: Statistical Innovations Inc, 2000. Google Scholar
Soper, HV, Satz, P, Orsini, DL, Henry, RR, Zvi, JC, Schulman, M. Handedness patterns in autism suggest subtypes. J Autism Dev Disord 1986;16: 155–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFarland, K, Anderson, J. Factor stability of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory as a function of test–retest performance, age, and sex. Br J Psychol 1980;71: 135–142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, MS. Factor analysis of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory. Cortex 1986;22: 325–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dragovic, M. Towards an improved measure of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory: a one-factor congeneric measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (in press).Google Scholar