Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:18:07.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of practice on the cognitive test performance of neurologically normal individuals assessed at brief test–retest intervals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2003

Collie Alexander ,
Maruff Paul ,
Darby David G.  and
Mcstephen Michael
Collie Alexander*
Affiliation:
Centre for Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia CogState Ltd, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia
Maruff Paul
Affiliation:
CogState Ltd, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia School of Psychological Science, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
Darby David G.
Affiliation:
Centre for Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia CogState Ltd, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia
Mcstephen Michael
Affiliation:
CogState Ltd, Carlton South, Victoria, Australia
*
Reprint requests to: Alex Collie, Centre for Neuroscience, The University of Melbourne, C/O 51 Leicester Street, Carlton South, Victoria, 3053, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Performance on many cognitive and neuropsychological tests may be improved by prior exposure to testing stimuli and procedures. These beneficial practice effects can have a significant impact on test performance when conventional neuropsychological tests are administered at test–retest intervals of weeks, months or years. Many recent investigations have sought to determine changes in cognitive function over periods of minutes or hours (e.g., before and after anesthesia) using computerized tests. However, the effects of practice at such brief test–retest intervals has not been reported. The current study sought to determine the magnitude of practice effects in a group of 113 individuals assessed with an automated cognitive test battery on 4 occasions in 1 day. Practice effects were evident both between and within assessments, and also within individual tests. However, these effects occurred mostly between the 1st and 2nd administration of the test battery, with smaller, nonsignificant improvements observed between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th administrations. On the basis of these results, methodological and statistical strategies that may aid in the differentiation of practice effects from drug-induced cognitive changes are proposed. (JINS, 2003, 9, 419–428.)

Keywords

Practice effectsTest–retestCognitionSerial assessmentCogState
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 25 March 2003 , pp. 419 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2003

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

Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Basso, M.R., Bornstein, R.A., & Lang, J.M. (1999). Practice effects of commonly used measures of executive function across twelve months. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 283–292.10.1076/clin.13.3.283.1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, R.H.B. & Zgaljardic, D.J. (1998). Practice effects during repeated administrations of memory test with and without alternate forms. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 339–352.10.1076/jcen.20.3.339.822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Collie, A., Darby, D.G., Falleti, M.G., Silbert, B., & Maruff, P. (2002). Determining the extent of cognitive change following coronary surgery: An analysis of statistical procedures. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 73, 2005–2011.10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03375-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, A., Darby, D.G., & Maruff, P. (2001a). Computerised cognitive assessment of athletes with sports-related head injury. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 35, 297–302.10.1136/bjsm.35.5.297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, A., Maruff, P., Shafiq-Antonacci, R., Smith, M., Hallup, M., Schofield, P., Masters, C., & Currie, J. (2001b). Memory decline in healthy older people: Implications for identifying mild cognitive impairment. Neurology, 56, 1533–1538.10.1212/WNL.56.11.1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, D. & Reid, K. (1997). Fatigue, alcohol and performance impairment. Nature, 388, 235.10.1038/40775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deijen, J.B. & Orlebeke, J.F. (1994). Effect of tyrosine on cognitive function and blood pressure under stress. Brain Research Bulletin, 33, 319–323.10.1016/0361-9230(94)90200-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., & McHugh, P.R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical guide for grading the cognitive status of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, A.M. (1992). Neuropsychological practice effects and age: A brief note. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, 257–258.10.2466/pms.1992.75.1.257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, A.E., Ghoneim, M.M., Kharasch, E.D., Epstein, R.H., Groudine, S.B., Ebert, T.J., Binstock, W.B., Philip, & B.K., the Sevoflurane Sedation Study Group. (2001). Speed of recovery and side-effect profile of sevoflurane sedation compared with midazolam. Anesthesiology, 94, 87–94.10.1097/00000542-200101000-00018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivnik, R.J., Smith, G.E., Lucas, J.A., Petersen, R.C., Boeve, B.F., Kokmen, E., & Tangalos, E.G., (1999). Testing normal older people three to four times at 1- to 2-year intervals: Defining normal variance. Neuropsychology, 13, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. & Traux, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaffrey, R.J., Duff, K., & Westervelt, H.J. (2000). Practitioner's guide to evaluating change with neuropsychological assessment instruments. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, R.J., Ortega, A., Orsillo, S.M., Nelles, W.B., & Haase, R.F. (1992). Practice effects in repeated neuropsychological assessments. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 32–42.10.1080/13854049208404115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitrushina, M. & Satz, P. (1991). Effect of repeated administration of a neuropsychological battery in the elderly. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 790–800.10.1002/1097-4679(199111)47:6<790::AID-JCLP2270470610>3.0.CO;2-C3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRef3.0.CO;2-C>Google Scholar
Rapport, L.J., Brines, D.B., Axelrod, B.N., & Theisen, M.E. (1997). Full scale IQ as mediator of practice effects: The rich get richer. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 375–380.10.1080/13854049708400466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theisen, M.E., Rapport, L.J., Axelrod, B.N., & Brines, D.B. (1998). Effects of repeated administrations of the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised in normal adults. Assessment, 5, 85–92.10.1177/107319119800500110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zakzanis, K.K., Heinrichs, R.W., & Ruttan, L.A. (1995). Three-year test–retest reliability of neurocognitive measures in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Research, 15, 140–148.10.1016/0920-9964(95)95435-CCrossRefGoogle Scholar