Primary Image

Rehab Measures Image

Behavioral Inattention Test


The BIT is a comprehensive battery designed to screen for unilateral visual neglect and provide information relevant to its treatment.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym BIT

Area of Assessment

Vision & Perception

Assessment Type


Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil


Not Free

Actual Cost



  • Stroke Recovery


Key Descriptions

  • Divided into 2 subtests:
    1) Conventional
    2) Behavioral
  • BIT Conventional subtest (BITC) consists of 6 items:
    1) Line crossing
    2) Letter cancellation
    3) Star cancellation
    4) Figure and shape copying
    5) Line bisection
    6) Representational drawing
  • BIT Behavioral subtest (BITB) consists of 9 items:
    1) Pre-scanning
    2) Phone dialing
    3) Menu reading
    4) Article reading
    5) Telling and setting the time
    6) Coin sorting
    7) Address and sentence copying
    8) Map navigation
    9) Card sorting
  • Total and subscores are obtained by adding the subtests scores together.
  • Maximum scores:
    1) BIT = 227
    2) BITC = 146
    3) BITB = 81
  • Lower scores are indicative of more severe visual impairment.

Number of Items


Equipment Required

  • BITC and BTIB Forms
  • Photographs of: A meal, A wash-basin and toiletries, A large room with pieces of furniture and hospital aids, Different settings of a digital clock
  • Open-out menu
  • Analogue clock
  • Six different types of coins
  • Playing cards
  • Paper and pencil

Time to Administer

40 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges


18 - 64


Elderly Adult

65 +


ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain



Cost of the test is approximately $280 dollars.

Behavioral Inattention Test translation:

These translations, and links to them, are subject to the Terms and Conditions of Use of the Rehab Measures Database. RIC is not responsible for and does not endorse the content, products or services of any third-party website, and does not make any representations regarding its quality, content or accuracy. If you would like to contribute a language translation to the RMD, please contact us at

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!


back to Populations

Cut-Off Scores

Cut-Off Scores: (Halligan et al, 1991; Menon & Korner-Bitensky, 2004)

Indicating the presence of spatial neglect:

    • BITC < than 129
    • BITB < than 67
    • BIT < than 196

Test/Retest Reliability

Stroke & Healthy Normals: (Wilson et al, 1987, n = 28 stroke and 14 non stroke patients; mean age (patients) = 54.29 (8.82) years; time since stroke = 12.25 (20.06) days)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (r = 0.83)

Acute Stroke: (Halligan et al, 1991, n = 80; mean age = 56.2 (10.5) years; average time since stroke = 2 months)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (r = 0.89 BITC; r = 0.97 BITB)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Acute Stroke: (Halligan et al, 1991):

  • Excellent inter-rater reliability (r = 0.99 BITC; r = 0.99 BITB)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Acute Stroke: (Jehkonen et al, 2000, n = 57, mean age = 63.23 (10.21) years, examined within 10 days of stroke)

  • Excellent predictor of poor functional outcomes
    • Results accounted for 73%, 64% and 61% of the total variance of the Frenchay Activity Index at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively 

Construct Validity

Acute Stroke: (Halligan et al, 1991; Cassidy et al, 1999)

  • Excellent to adequate convergent validity with:
    • Occupational Therapist Checklist (r = -0.65)
    • Rivermead Activities of Daily Living Assessment (r = 0.55)
    • Barthel Index (r = 0.64)

Content Validity

Test development: (Wilson et al, 1987)

  • Interviewed clients with stroke about everyday difficulties
  • Retrieved information from published cases, behavioral observation of patients with neglect, as well as from discussions with occupational therapists, physiotherapists, clinical psychologists, and neurologists, all of whom had worked with patients with visual neglect.
  • Final selection of items was determined based on results of a pilot study


Cassidy, T., Bruce, D., et al. (1999). "The association of visual field deficits and visuo-spatial neglect in acute right-hemisphere stroke patients." Age and Ageing 28(3): 257. Find it on PubMed

Halligan, P., Cockburn, J., et al. (1991). "The behavioural assessment of visual neglect." Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 1(1): 5-32.

Jehkonen, M., Ahonen, J. P., et al. (2000). "Visual neglect as a predictor of functional outcome one year after stroke." Acta Neurol Scand 101: 195-201. Find it on PubMed

Menon, A. and Korner-Bitensky, N. (2004). "Evaluating unilateral spatial neglect post stroke: working your way through the maze of assessment choices." Top Stroke Rehabil 11: 41-66. Find it on PubMed

Wilson, B., Cockburn, J., et al. (1987). "Development of a behavioral test of visuospatial neglect." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 68: 98-9102. Find it on PubMed