记忆门诊病人和健康成年人的雷伊听觉言语学习测试成绩评估方法--学习理论与临床实用性的交叉点。

IF 3 3区 心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2384616
Ove Almkvist, Anna Rennie, Eric Westman, John Wallert, Urban Ekman
{"title":"记忆门诊病人和健康成年人的雷伊听觉言语学习测试成绩评估方法--学习理论与临床实用性的交叉点。","authors":"Ove Almkvist, Anna Rennie, Eric Westman, John Wallert, Urban Ekman","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2384616","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Knowledge is still lacking regarding the preferred method for evaluation of learning in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Validity of different methods was examined by the effect size in differentiating diagnostic stages in memory clinic patients versus healthy adults and the strength of association between RAVLT performance and brain atrophy. <b>Method:</b> The study included individuals with dementia (<i>n</i> = 247), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI, <i>n</i> = 709), Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI, <i>n</i> = 175) and cognitively unimpaired adults serving as healthy controls (HC, <i>n</i> = 102). All patients went through a comprehensive clinical examination and neuropsychological assessment of cognition including episodic memory gauged with RAVLT and brain imaging of medial temporal atrophy, cortical atrophy, and white matter hyperintensity. <b>Results:</b> The standard method for evaluation of learning in RAVLT (summed score over five trials) together with the late learning method (mean of trials 4 and 5) were the two most powerful methods according to group differentiation (discriminant validity). Both methods also showed considerable association with medial temporal atrophy (construct validity). The initial RAVLT performance represented by results on trial 1 and the constant in regression analysis with the power function provided information regarding attention that was important for the separation of SCI and HC. <b>Conclusions:</b> The most favorable clinical utility was indicated by discriminant and construct validity by total learning (standard method) including both attention- and learning-related parts and late learning of RAVLT performance, while theoretical understanding of mental processes involved in RAVLT performance was provided by the distinction between initial versus the subsequent learning performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods for assessment of rey auditory verbal learning test performance in memory clinic patients and healthy adults - at the cross-roads of learning theory and clinical utility.\",\"authors\":\"Ove Almkvist, Anna Rennie, Eric Westman, John Wallert, Urban Ekman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13854046.2024.2384616\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Knowledge is still lacking regarding the preferred method for evaluation of learning in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Validity of different methods was examined by the effect size in differentiating diagnostic stages in memory clinic patients versus healthy adults and the strength of association between RAVLT performance and brain atrophy. <b>Method:</b> The study included individuals with dementia (<i>n</i> = 247), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI, <i>n</i> = 709), Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI, <i>n</i> = 175) and cognitively unimpaired adults serving as healthy controls (HC, <i>n</i> = 102). All patients went through a comprehensive clinical examination and neuropsychological assessment of cognition including episodic memory gauged with RAVLT and brain imaging of medial temporal atrophy, cortical atrophy, and white matter hyperintensity. <b>Results:</b> The standard method for evaluation of learning in RAVLT (summed score over five trials) together with the late learning method (mean of trials 4 and 5) were the two most powerful methods according to group differentiation (discriminant validity). Both methods also showed considerable association with medial temporal atrophy (construct validity). The initial RAVLT performance represented by results on trial 1 and the constant in regression analysis with the power function provided information regarding attention that was important for the separation of SCI and HC. <b>Conclusions:</b> The most favorable clinical utility was indicated by discriminant and construct validity by total learning (standard method) including both attention- and learning-related parts and late learning of RAVLT performance, while theoretical understanding of mental processes involved in RAVLT performance was provided by the distinction between initial versus the subsequent learning performance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neuropsychologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2384616\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2384616","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:关于雷伊听觉言语学习测验(RAVLT)学习评估的首选方法,目前仍缺乏相关知识。本研究通过区分记忆门诊病人与健康成人诊断阶段的效应大小,以及雷氏听觉言语学习测验成绩与脑萎缩之间的关联强度,对不同方法的有效性进行了研究。研究方法研究对象包括痴呆症患者(247 人)、轻度认知障碍患者(MCI,709 人)、主观认知障碍患者(SCI,175 人)以及作为健康对照的认知功能未受损成年人(HC,102 人)。所有患者都接受了全面的临床检查和认知神经心理学评估,包括用 RAVLT 测定外显记忆,以及颞叶内侧萎缩、皮质萎缩和白质密度增高的脑成像。结果RAVLT 学习评估的标准方法(5 次试验的总分)和晚期学习方法(第 4 次和第 5 次试验的平均分)是两种最有效的组间区分方法(判别效度)。这两种方法还显示出与内侧颞叶萎缩有相当大的关联(构造效度)。以试验 1 的结果为代表的 RAVLT 初始成绩和幂函数回归分析中的常数提供了有关注意力的信息,这些信息对于区分 SCI 和 HC 非常重要。结论包括注意力和学习相关部分在内的总学习(标准方法)以及 RAVLT 表现的后期学习的判别有效性和建构有效性显示了最有利的临床实用性,而对 RAVLT 表现所涉及的心理过程的理论理解则体现在对初始学习表现和后续学习表现的区分上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Methods for assessment of rey auditory verbal learning test performance in memory clinic patients and healthy adults - at the cross-roads of learning theory and clinical utility.

Background: Knowledge is still lacking regarding the preferred method for evaluation of learning in the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Validity of different methods was examined by the effect size in differentiating diagnostic stages in memory clinic patients versus healthy adults and the strength of association between RAVLT performance and brain atrophy. Method: The study included individuals with dementia (n = 247), Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI, n = 709), Subjective Cognitive Impairment (SCI, n = 175) and cognitively unimpaired adults serving as healthy controls (HC, n = 102). All patients went through a comprehensive clinical examination and neuropsychological assessment of cognition including episodic memory gauged with RAVLT and brain imaging of medial temporal atrophy, cortical atrophy, and white matter hyperintensity. Results: The standard method for evaluation of learning in RAVLT (summed score over five trials) together with the late learning method (mean of trials 4 and 5) were the two most powerful methods according to group differentiation (discriminant validity). Both methods also showed considerable association with medial temporal atrophy (construct validity). The initial RAVLT performance represented by results on trial 1 and the constant in regression analysis with the power function provided information regarding attention that was important for the separation of SCI and HC. Conclusions: The most favorable clinical utility was indicated by discriminant and construct validity by total learning (standard method) including both attention- and learning-related parts and late learning of RAVLT performance, while theoretical understanding of mental processes involved in RAVLT performance was provided by the distinction between initial versus the subsequent learning performance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
12.80%
发文量
61
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.
期刊最新文献
Interpreting the direct- and derived-Trail Making Test scores in Argentinian children: regression-based norms, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, and practice effects. Enhanced detection of suboptimal effort in psychoeducational assessments for dyslexia. Neuropsychological normative standards for late career physicians. Naturalistic assessment of everyday multitasking in Parkinson's disease with and without mild cognitive impairment. Utility of learning ratio scores from the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) Word List Memory Test in distinguishing patterns of cognitive decline in veterans referred for neuropsychological evaluation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1