Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:58:42.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Utility of California Verbal Learning Test, Second Edition, recall discriminability indices in the evaluation of traumatic brain injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2007

JACOBUS DONDERS  and
JACOB B. NIENHUIS
JACOBUS DONDERS
Affiliation:
Psychology Service, Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan
JACOB B. NIENHUIS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The performance of 23 patients with moderate–severe traumatic brain injury on the California Verbal Learning Test, Second Edition (CVLT-II; Delis et al., 2000) was compared with that of 23 matched healthy controls to determine whether recall discriminability indices, which take into account both correct target recall and intrusive errors, would provide better diagnostic classification than traditional variables that are based exclusively on correct recall. Patients with traumatic brain injury recalled fewer correct words, and also made more intrusive errors, on CVLT-II short and long delay, free and cued recall trials (p < .02 for all variables after Stepdown Bonferroni correction). However, recall discriminability indices yielded a classification of clinical versus control participants (72%) that was not significantly different from one based on traditional variables (74%). We conclude that CVLT-II recall discriminability indices do not routinely provide an advantage over traditional variables in patients with traumatic brain injury. (JINS, 2007, 13, 354–358.)

Keywords

AssessmentLearningMemoryTraumatic brain injurySensitivitySpecificity
Type
BRIEF COMMUNICATIONS
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 354 - 358
Copyright
© 2007 The International Neuropsychological Society

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

REFERENCES

Baldo, J.V., Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., & Shimamura, A.P. (2002). Memory performance on the California Verbal Learning Test–II: Findings from patients with focal frontal lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 539–546.Google Scholar
Cato, M.A., Delis, D.C., Abildskov, T.J., & Bigler, E. (2004). Assessing the elusive cognitive deficits associated with ventromedial prefrontal damage: A case of modern-day Phineas Gage. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 453–465.Google Scholar
Crosson, B., Sartor, K.J., Jenny, A.B., Nabors, N.A., & Moberg, P.J. (1993). Increased intrusions during verbal recall in traumatic and nontraumatic lesions of the temporal lobe. Neuropsychology, 7, 193–208.Google Scholar
Curtiss, G., Vanderploeg, R.D., Spencer, J., & Salazar, A.M. (2001). Patterns of verbal learning and memory in traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7, 574–585.Google Scholar
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (1987). California Verbal Learning Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (2000). California Verbal Learning Test—Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Delis, D.C., Massman, P.J., Butters, N., Salmon, D.P., Cermak, L.S., & Kramer, J.H. (1991). Profiles of demented and amnesic patients on the California Verbal Learning Test: Implications of the assessment of memory disorders. Psychological Assessment, 3, 19–26.Google Scholar
Delis, D.C., Wetter, S.R., Jacobson, M.W., Peavy, G., Hamilton, J., Gongvatana, A., Kramer, J.H., Bondi, M.W., Corey-Bloom, J., & Salmon, D.P. (2005). Recall discriminability: Utility of a new CVLT-II measure in the differential diagnosis of dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 708–715.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J.M., Salmon, D.P., Galasko, D., Delis, D.C., Hansen, L.A., Masliah, E., Thomas, R.G., & Thal, L.J. (2004). A comparison of episodic memory deficits in neuropathologically-confirmed dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 689–697.Google Scholar
Iverson, G.L. (2005). Outcome from mild traumatic brain injury. Current Opinions in Psychiatry, 18, 301–317.Google Scholar
Kibby, M.Y., Schmitter-Edgecombe, M., & Long, C.J. (1998). Ecological validity of neuropsychological tests: Focus on the California Verbal Learning Test and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13, 523–534.Google Scholar
Schretlen, D.J. & Shapiro, A.M. (2003). A quantitative review of the effects of traumatic brain injury on cognitive functioning. International Review of Psychiatry, 15, 341–349.Google Scholar
Stricker, J.L., Brown, G.G., Wixted, J., Baldo, J.V., & Delis, D.C. (2002). New semantic and serial clustering indices for the California Verbal Learning Test—second edition: Background, rationale, and formulae. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 8, 425–435.Google Scholar
Wiegner, S. & Donders, J. (1999). Performance on the California Verbal Learning Test after traumatic brain injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21, 159–170.Google Scholar