Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comparison of various RAVLT scores in the detection of noncredible memory performance

Comparison of various RAVLT scores in the detection of noncredible memory performance AbstractSixty-one noncredible patients (as documented by psychometric and behavioral criteria) scored significantly below 25 controls and 88 credible clinic patients with no motive to feign on most RAVLT scores, including added indices of implicit and “automatic” memory. A combination of true recognition (i.e., recognition minus false positives) + implicit memory score (i.e., the number of word stems completed with RAVLT items) + “automatic” memory score (i.e., the number of correct temporal order judgments) ≤22 was associated with 75.7% sensitivity with specificity at 91.5%. However, sensitivity was nearly as high when scores available from the standard RAVLT administration alone (i.e., no word stem or temporal order trials) were combined. Specifically, a cut-off of ≤12 for true recognition (recognition minus false positives) + primacy recognition (i.e., number of words recognized from the first third of the test) was associated with 73.8% sensitivity at 90% specificity. These results indicate that combined indices of recognition memory from the RAVLT are effective in identifying noncredible memory performance in “real world” samples and are modestly superior to the 67.2% sensitivity obtained with the standard recognition score. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Oxford University Press

Comparison of various RAVLT scores in the detection of noncredible memory performance

Download PDF
19 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/comparison-of-various-ravlt-scores-in-the-detection-of-noncredible-9ecFeE7Yxf

References (40)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© Published by Oxford University Press.
ISSN
0887-6177
eISSN
1873-5843
DOI
10.1016/j.acn.2004.08.001
pmid
15797167
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractSixty-one noncredible patients (as documented by psychometric and behavioral criteria) scored significantly below 25 controls and 88 credible clinic patients with no motive to feign on most RAVLT scores, including added indices of implicit and “automatic” memory. A combination of true recognition (i.e., recognition minus false positives) + implicit memory score (i.e., the number of word stems completed with RAVLT items) + “automatic” memory score (i.e., the number of correct temporal order judgments) ≤22 was associated with 75.7% sensitivity with specificity at 91.5%. However, sensitivity was nearly as high when scores available from the standard RAVLT administration alone (i.e., no word stem or temporal order trials) were combined. Specifically, a cut-off of ≤12 for true recognition (recognition minus false positives) + primacy recognition (i.e., number of words recognized from the first third of the test) was associated with 73.8% sensitivity at 90% specificity. These results indicate that combined indices of recognition memory from the RAVLT are effective in identifying noncredible memory performance in “real world” samples and are modestly superior to the 67.2% sensitivity obtained with the standard recognition score.

Journal

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology – Oxford University Press

Published: May 1, 2005

Keywords: RAVLT Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test Suspect effort Malingering

There are no references for this article.