10.1080@01688639508405144

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/10108001688639508405144 1/13

This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 20 April 2013, At: 00:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Clinical and Experimental

NeuropsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen20

Construct validity of various verbal andvisual memory testsGlenn J. Larrabee

a & Glenn Curtiss

b

a

Independent Practiceb James A. Haley V. A. Medical Center

Version of record first published: 04 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Glenn J. Larrabee & Glenn Curtiss (1995): Construct validity of various verbal and

visual memory tests, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17:4, 536-547

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639508405144

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any

instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639508405144

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639508405144

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen20

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

1995,

Vol. 17, NO. 4,

pp.

536-547

I380-3395/95/1704-536 6.00

wets

&

Zeitlinger

Construct Validity

of

Various Verbal and

Visual

Memory

Tests*

Glenn J. L a r ra b e e ' an d G l e nn C u r t i s 2

'Indepen den t Prac tice, and 'James A. Haley V.A. Medical Cen ter

A B S T R A C T

Factor analysis was conducted on attention, information processing, verbal and visual memory sco res of

I12 patients. Factor structure did not vary

as

a function of ag e. The Expanded Paired Associates Test,

Verbal

Selective Rem inding Test, Con tinuous Recognition Memory Test, and Con tinuous Visual Memory

Test defined

a

general memory factor. The PASAT, WMS Mental Control, and WAIS-R Digit Span de-

fined

an

attentionhiforma tion processing factor. Immediate Visual Reproduction

( V R ) loaded

primarily

on

visua hon verb al intelligence, whereas delayed

V R

loaded primarily

with

the mem ory factor. The Trail

Making Test, Part

B was

more

closely

associated with visual/nonverbal intelligence

than wi th

atten-

tionhnform ation processing. Serial Digit Learning was more closely associated

with

attentionhnformation

processing than

with

general memory.

Com prehensive evaluat ion of l earning and mem -

ory requi res examinat ion of mult iple dimensions

including attention/concentration, informat ion

process ing ra te , imm ediate mem ory, verbal and

visual learning a nd retent ion, and remo te recal l

(Cunningham , 1986; E r i ckson

&

Scot t , 1977;

Lor ing Papanicolaou, 1987; Mayes , 1986) .

Memory tes t development has general ly fol -

lowed two strategies: ( a ) developme nt of omni-

bus bat teries such

as

the Wechsler Memory

Scale-Revised (Wechsler , I987) , Memory

As-

sessment Sca les (Wil liams, 1991) , and Denm an

N e u r o p s y c h o lo g y M e m o r y S c a l e ( D e n m a n ,

1984) ; and (b) developm ent of specia l ized indi -

vidual tests

of

verbal memory, visual memory,

a t tent ion, and informat ion process ing ra te , such

as the California Verbal Learning Test (Delis ,

Kramer , Kaplan,

&

Ober, 198 7), Verbal Selec-

t ive Rem inding Test (Busc hke,

1973),

Cont inu-

ous

Visual Memory Test (Trahan

&

Larrabee,

198 8), Visual Sp atial Learning Test (Ma lec,

Ivnik,

&

Hinkeldy, 1991) , and Paced Audi tory

Ser ia l Addi t ion Test (Gronwal l , 1977) .

Val idation of m emory bat ter ies and specia l -

ized individual memory tests has involved ad-

minis ter ing these procedures to groups of pa-

t ients known to have a high base-rate

of

memory

impai rment (e .g . , severe c losed-head t rauma)

as

well

as

factor analysis, wh ich is used

to

evaluate

the factor structure and construct val idi ty

of

the$e measures (Delis et al., 1987; Larrabee

&

Crook, 1988; Trahan & Larrabee, 1988; Wechs-

ler , 19 87). To demo nstrate con struct val idi ty,

measures of learning and memory should load

on fac tors which are dis t inct and separate f rom

measures

of

verbal and visuospatial reasoning

ski l l s and separate f rom measures of at tent ion,

concent ra t ion, and informat ion process ing speed

(Cunningham , 1986; E r i ckson

&

Scot t , 1977;

Larrabee, 1987; Larrabee, Kane, Schuck,

Francis ,

1985).

Cunningham

(1986)

has recom-

mended programmat ic , l inked factor analyses

for improv ed identif icat ion

of

key mem ory vari-

ables and factors . Larrabee e t

al. (1985)

have

We gratefully acknow ledge the assistance of Lisa Meyer, Todd S nyder, and Christine Todd in

data

manage-

ment, and Susan Towers

in

manuscript preparation. Portions

of

this paper were presented at the annual meeting

of t h e American

Psychological Association,

San

Francisco, August,

1991.

Requ ests for reprints should

be sent

to

Glenn J. Larrabee , Ph.D., 630 South Orang e, Suite 202, Sarasota, FL 34 236, USA.

Accepted

for

pub l ica tion : Novem ber 28, 1994.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


MEMORY

TEST

CONSTRU CT VALlDlTY

537

~

suggested

a

framework for factor analytic evalu-

ation of mem ory test construc t validity employ-

ing marker variables for verbal intelligence,

visuospatial intelligence, attention, and concen-

tration,

as

well

as

conducting separate factor

analyses for immediate versus delayed recall

scores. This secon d recomm endation is particu-

lar ly important, s ince including imm ediate and

delayed m emory scores in the same factor analy-

sis results in factors defined by method variance.

Hence, rather than representing a true construct,

these factors would be spu rious, due to the high

intercorrelation between immediate and d elayed

tr ials secondary to similar testing procedures fo r

identical stimulus materials (Smith, Malec,

&

Ivnik, 1992).

Recent factor analyses of the WMS-R and

other collections of specialized memory assess-

ment procedures which have factor analyzed

acquisition an d delayed recall scores separately,

demonstrate two recurrent patterns of factor

loadings. First, verbal mem ory tests such

as

the

W M S or W MS -R Paired Associate Learning and

Logical Memory load

on a

general memory

or

verbal mem ory facto r that is independent of at-

tention and verbal reasoning, irrespective of

whether the score is based on learn ing trials ver-

sus delayed recal l (Lar ra bee e t a l . , 198 5;

Leonberger , Nicks , Goldfader

&

Lar rabee ,

1990; Leonberger, Nicks, Larrabee,

&

Gold-

fader, 1992; Smith et al., 1992). By contrast,

purported measures of visual memory such

as

the WMS Visual Reproduction show

a

greater

association with visuospatial intelligence than

memory during the acquisit ion phase ( i .e. , im-

mediate reproduction

of

a design following

10-s

exposure) and a stronger association with a

memory factor for delayed recall trials (Larra-

bee et

al.,

1985; Larrabee, Trahan, Curtiss ,

1992; Leonberger et al., 1990, 1992; Smith et

al., 1992). The above investigations have all

found a general memory factor rather than sepa-

rate verbal and visual m odality specific mem ory

factors, with the exception of Larrabee et al . ,

(1992) who found separate verbal and visual

memo ry factors independen t of factors for ver-

bal and visuospatial reasoning and intelligence,

when delayed tr ials of WMS Visual Reproduc-

t ion and the CV M T were factored.

Of additional in terest is wh ether factor struc-

ture varies

as

a function

of

age. Age effects in

level of performance on memory tests are well

established. The effects

of

age on structure of

memory abili t ies have not been studied as exten-

sively. Bornstein and Chelune ( 1989) evaluated

the factor structure of the WM S-R in three dif-

ferent age groups:

39

years

or

less,

40-55

years,

and 56 years or greater . Th e structure was qu ite

similar when IQ scores were not included, but

changed when

IQ was

included with extraction

of additional factors i n the younger age group.

Other investigators have used a different ap-

proach in which ag e is considered as a continu-

ous variable that is regressed on memory test

scores, with factor analysis of the residuals.

These studies have found

no

effect of age on

factor structure (Crook & Larrabee, 1988; Delis ,

Freeland, Kramer,

& Kaplan,

1988)

even when

intelligence scores were included (Larrabee et

al., 1992).

In the present study, we evaluate the factor

structure and construct validity of several spe-

cialized tests of memory and information pro-

cessing including the following: Serial Digit

Learning (Ser ia l Digi ts ; Benton, H amsher ,

Varney,

&

Spreen, 1983), the Expanded Paired

Associate Test (EPAT; Trahan, Larrabee, Quin-

tana, Goethe,

&

Willingham , 1989), Verbal Se-

lective Rem inding Test (VSRT; Buschke, 1973;

Hannay & Levin,

1985),

mmediate and D elayed

Visual Reproduction from the WMS (Russell ,

1975;

Trahan, Quintana, W illingham, & Goethe,

1988),Continuous Recognit ion Memory (CR M;

Hannay, Levin,

&

Grossman, 1979), the CVM T

( T r a h a n L a r r a b e e , 1 9 8 8 ) ,

t h e

PASAT

(Gron wall, 197 7; Levin et al., 1987), and the

Trail Making Test (Reitan

&

Wolfson, 1985).

Marker variables were selected for verbal rea-

soning and intelligence (WAIS-R Vocabulary

and Information subtests) , visuospatial reason-

ing and intelligence (WAIS-R Block D esign and

O b j e c t A s s e m b l y s u b t e s t s ) , a n d a t t e n -

t ionhmmediate memory span (WMS Mental

Control and WA IS-R Digit Span), following the

design of Larrabee et al . (1 985) an d providing a

programmatic l ink to this previous study (viz.

Cunning ham, 1986). Stabili ty of factor structure

relative to age was analyzed by factoring raw

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


538 G L E N N J L A R R A B EE A N D G L E N N CURTISS

scores and scores residualized for age to repli-

cate previous research, which

has

yielded simi-

l a r

factor structure for age-adjusted and raw

memory test scores (Crook

&

Larrabee,

1988;

Delis et

al.,

1988; Larrabee eta] ., 1992).

ME T H O D

Subjects

Fifty-six male and

56

female outpatients, ages 16 to

70

(M=

39.34,

S D =

13.19), and with 7 to

18

years of

education

M

= 12.65, SD = 3.09) were examined with

a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Average

WAIS-R VIQ was 99.08 ( S D = 13.67), average PIQ

was 100.58

SD=

14.00),

and average FSIQ was

99.79

(SD =

13.27). Primary diagnoses included

Closed-HeadTrauma ( 3 3 ,Somatoform Disorder(21),

Depression

1

7), Seizure Disorder (6), Unspecified

Central Nervous System Disease (positive neurologic

findings with unclear etiology)

( 5 ) ,

Alcohol Abuse

( 3 ) ,

Dementia

( 3 ) ,

Pseudodementia (2), Posttraumatic

Stress Disorder (2), Adjustment Disorder (2), Hydro-

cephalus (2), Bipolar Disorder (2), Multiple Sclerosis

(2), Personality Disorder (2), Penetrating Head Injury

I ) ,

Schizophrenia

I ) ,

Bulimia

I ) ,

Learning Disabil-

ity I ) , Polysubstance Abuse I ) , Anterior Communi-

cating Artery Aneursym

1 ),

Narcolepsy

I ) ,

and CVA

1 ) . All patients were seen in the senior author’s pri-

vate practice. Subjects were not included if they were

aphasic, had neglect, or demonstrated evidence of

motivational impairment (i.e., worse-than-chance per-

formance on the CRM or CVMT, c.f. Larrabee, 1992;

invalid MMPI).

Procedures

The Information, Vocabulary, Digit Span, Block De-

sign, and Object Assembly subtests were administered

and scored following procedures detailed in the

WAIS-R manual (Wechsler, 1981). The

W M S

Mental

Control subtest was administered and scored follow-

ing the procedures outlined by Wechsler I 945).

The Serial Digit procedure requires the subject to

learn an

8-

or 9-digit supraspan sequence over a max-

imum of 12 trials (Benton et al., 1983). The 9-digit

sequence is administered to subjects under the age of

65 who have 12 or more years of formal education,

and the 8-digit series is administered to subjects over

64 years of age or those who have less than 12 years

of education. Testing is terminated if two correct se-

quences are recalled prior to completion of 12 trials.

Scoring is based on full credit (2 points) for each cor-

rect sequence, and partial credit

1

point) for “near

correct” responses (ix., one digit is either omitted,

added, or substituted, or there is a simple reversal of

two adjacent digits). In the present analysis, the total

raw score points were utilized. This test is reported to

be particularly sensitive to bilateral brain disease

(Benton et al., 1983).

The EPAT is a modification of the original WMS

Paired Associate Learning subtest, wherein four addi-

tional low associational value word-pairs were added

(lampshade-sidewalk, crossroad-pillow, lawnmower-

envelope, automobile-scissors), as well

as

a 30-min

delayed recall trial (Trahan et

al.,

1989). The test

yields an acquisition or learning trial score (sum of

“easy” divided by 2 plus the sum of the “hard” pairs

recalled), and

a

delayed recall score (sum of “easy”

divided by 2 plus the sum of the “hard” word pairs

recalled). The EPAT

i s

normed on 306 adults ages

I8

to 91, and is sensitive to severe closed-head injury,

CVA (in particular, left CVA), and presumptive Alz-

heimer-type dementia (Trahan et al., 1989).

The VSRT employed in the present analysis is

Form

I

of the version developed by Levin and col-

leagues (Hannay & Levin, 1985; Larrabee, Trahan,

Curtiss, Levin, 1988). This form of the VSRT re-

quires the subject to learn

a

list of 12 unrelated words

over a maximum of

12

trials. Unlike other verbal

learning and memory measures, the subject is not pre-

sented with the entire list (other than on the initial

trial) prior to each recall attempt. Rather, the subject

only hears those words repeated that he/she did not

recall on the preceding trial, yet the subject is still ex-

pected to give all of the words on the list. Administra-

tion is continued until three perfect recall trials are

achieved, without reminding, or for 12 trials. A vari-

ety of scores can be computed including Long-Term

Storage (LTS; a word is assumed to have entered LTS

if it is recalled at least once without reminding), Con-

sistent Long-Term Retrieval (CLTR; a word is in

CLTR if it is recalled consistently, without reminding,

to criterion), and 30-min delayed free recall. In the

present analysis, the cumulative sum of words in

CLTR was employed as the acquisition variable, with

delayed recall based on free recall at 30 min. The ver-

sion of the

VSRT

used in the present study has been

found to be sensitive to residual verbal memory im-

pairment following closed-head injury (Levin,

Benton, & Grossman, 1982), and early stage Alzhei-

mer-type dementia (Larrabee, Largen, Levin,

1985).

The WMS Visual Reproduction subtest is from the

original WMS (Wechsler, 1945), with the Russell

1 975) procedure of immediate and 30-min delayed

reproduction (Trahan et al., 1988). Drawings were

scored following the criteria specified by Wechsler

1 945) and total points correct for the immediate and

30-min trials were used in the present analysis. Data

presented by Trahan et

al.

(1988) demonstrate an

as-

sociation of performance with age in 255 normal sub-

jects, ages 18 to 91, with sensitivity of the procedure

to left and right CVA, severe closed-head injury, and

presumptive Alzheimer-type dementia.

The CRM was originally developed for evaluation

of the effects of closed-head injury on visual recogni-

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


MEMORY

TEST

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY 539

tion memory (H annay et at., 197 9). The test employs

120 line drawings of living things and objects (e.g.,

flowers, sea shells, birds) as stimuli. There are eight

different categories of stimuli, each containing six

perceptually similar yet different exemplars, one of

which recurs while the others occur only once in the

120card s. Th e subjects’ task is to identify the recur-

ring stimuli

as

“old” and the nonrecurring stimuli

as

“new.” For the present analysis, the total correct

score (correct identification of both “old” and

“new” stimuli) was employed for the acquisition

score. Although the original CRM did not include a

delayed recognition score, the procedure

was

modi-

fied for the present analysis by having the subject i n -

dicate, at 30-min delay, which of the six perceptually

similar exemplars had repeated throughout the deck of

cards. Hannay et al., (1979) and Hannay and Levin

(1989)

report data demonstrating the sensitivity of the

CR M to the effects of varying degrees of head trauma

severity in adults and adolescents.

The CVMT was developed

to

incorporate five ba-

sic features: (a) a visual recognition memory format,

(b ) use of complex ambiguou s designs not easily sus-

ceptible to verbal labeling, (c ) a large number of stim-

uli,

including classes of perceptually similar stimuli,

(d) limited exposure time to each stimulus, and (e)

a

delayed recognition test (Trahan & Larrabee, 1988;

Trahan, Larrabee, & Quintana, 1990). The CV MT has

I12 designs, seven of which are repeated

s ix

times.

Each of the repeated stimuli are from categories con-

taining six perceptually similar stimuli that do not re-

cur. The subject must identify the recurring stimuli as

“old” and the nonrecurring stimuli as “new” in a

manner similar to the CRM . In the present study, the

total correct score (correct identification of recurring

stimuli

as

“old” and nonrecurring

as

“new”) was

used for the acquisition measure, with the number of

stimuli correctly identified at 30-min delayed recogni-

tion representing the delayed score. The CVMT has

been demon strated to be sensitive to the effects of am-

nestic disorder, severe closed- head injury, presump-

tive Alzheimer-type dementia, and right hemisphere

CVA

(Trahan Larrabee,

1988;

Trahan

et

al.,

1990 .

The Trail Making Test was administered according

to instructions provided by Reitan and Wolfson

(1985). Part A was scored for time taken to complete

the connection of

a scattered array of num bers,

in

in-

creasing order of value. Part

B

was scored for the total

time taken to connect a scattered array of numbers and

letters

in

increasing, alternating order of value. This

procedure,

in

particular, Part B,

i s

well-established

as

a sensitive measure of brain function (Reitan &

Wolfson, 1985). In the present study, the score for the

more complex Part B was employed.

The PASAT was developed as a measure of infor-

mation processing rate (Gronw all, 1977). The task

employed in the present study utilized a tape record-

ing of compu ter-synthesized speech requiring the sub-

ject to perform rapid serial addition across four blocks

of 50 numbers, with the time between numbers de-

creasing across the trial block s from 2.4 s

to

2.0, I .6,

and I 2 s. (Br ittain , La March e, Reeder, Roth, & Boll,

1991; Levin et al., 1987; Roman, Edwall, Buchanan,

&

Patton, 1991). The score is based

on

the numb er of

correct additions for each trial block.

I n

the present

analysis, the number correct for the most rapid presen-

tation rate (nu mb ers every 1.2

s

Trial Block 4) was

utilized. The PASAT

is

quite sensitive to the residual

effects of concussion and mild closed- head injury

(Gronw all, 1977; Levin et al., 1 987).

Scores from the above procedures were submitted

to two sets of factor analyses. Raw test scores were

factored in the first set of analyses and test scores

residualized for the effects of age were factored in the

second set. Within each set of factor analyses, sepa-

rate analyses were conducted for the immediate and

delayed verbal and visual memory test scores. Vari-

able s remaining c onstant in the

two

set s of factor anal-

yses included Information, Vocabulary, Digit Span,

Block Design, Object A ssembly, Serial Digits, Mental

Control, Trail Making Test, Part B, and PASAT trial

4. As noted earlier, only one score was selected from

the PASAT and Trail Making Test. This was done

in

order to avoid factors determined by method variance

(cf. Larrabee et al., 1 985; Smith et al., 1992).

R E S U L T S

T e s t s c o r e s we r e s u b m i t t e d t o p ri n c i p al a x i s f a c -

t o r a n a l y s i s , u t i l iz i n g s q u a r e d mu l t i p l e c o r r e l a -

t ions as i n i ti a l c o mm u n a l i t y e s t i ma t e s . T h e Ka i -

s e r Gu t t ma n c r i te r i o n a n d

scree

p l o t w e r e c o n -

s i s t e n t i n s u g g e s t i n g a f o u r - f a c t o r s o l u t i o n

( Go r s u c h , 1983).

For

t h e i m m e d i a t e

recall

raw

score

ana lys i s ,

t h e e i g e n v a l u e s f o r t h e f i rs t f o u r c o mp o n e n t s i n

t h e u n r o t a te d s o l u t i o n we r e 4.93, I .87, I .32, a n d

1.24.

The f ina l , va r imax- ro ta ted p r inc ipa l ax i s

so lu t ion i s d i sp layed in Tab le

1.

T h e e i g e nv a l u e s

f o r t h e v a r i ma x r o t at i o n a r e 2 . 2 2 f o r f a c t o r

I ,

2.10 f o r f a c t o r 2 , I

.56

f o r f a c t o r 3, a n d 1.48 f o r

f a c t o r

4

c c o u n t i n g f o r 5 2 . 6 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e.

The f i r s t f ac to r , wi th load ings f rom the EPAT,

VSRT, C R M , Ser ia l Dig i t s , CVMT, and Visua l

Re p r o d u c t i o n , d e f i ne s a d i me n s i o n o f g e n e r a l

( v e r b a l a n d v i s u a l ) me mo r y , a c c o u n t i n g f o r

1 5 . 9 % o f t h e v a r i a n c e. T h e s e c o n d f a c t o r , w i t h

l o a d i n g s fr o m B l o c k De s i g n , Ob j e c t As s e mb l y ,

T r a i l Ma k i n g T e s t , P a r t B , a n d V i su a l Re p r o d u c -

t ion , de f ines a f ac to r o f v i suospa t i a l in te l l i -

g e n c e / a b i l i t y a c c o u n t i n g f o r 15% of the va r i -

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


5

40

ance. The third factor, defined by loadings from

Digit Span, Serial Digits, Mental Control, and

the PASAT, defines

a

dimension of atten-

tionhmmediate memory and information pro-

cessing, accounting for 11.1% of the variance.

The fourth factor, defined by loadings from In-

formation and Vocabulary, comprises a factor of

verbal intelligence/ability, accounting for 10.6%

of the variance. Noteworthy findings include a

greater loading of Serial Digits on atten-


cessing than on general memory, a greater load-

ing of Visual Reproduction on spatial intelli-

gence/ability than on general memory, and a

greater loading of Trail Making Test, Part B on

spatial intelligencefability than on atten-


cessing.

For the delayed recallhecognition raw score

analysis, the eigenvalues for the first four com-

ponents in the unrotated solution were

4.60,

I

.93,

I .29,

and 1.26. The final, varimax-rotated

principal axis solution is displayed in Table 2.

GLENN J LARRABEE A ND GLENN CURTISS

~

The eigenvalues for the varimax rotation are

2.25

for factor 1, 1.68 for factor

2,

1.58 for fac-

tor 3, and 1.50 for factor 4, accounting for

50.1%

of the variance. The first factor, with

loadings from VSRT, Visual Reproduction,

CRM, CVMT, EPAT, and Serial Digits defines

a general (verbal and visual) memory factor,

accounting for 16.1 of the variance. The sec-

ond factor, with loadings from Block Design,

Object Assembly, and Trail Making Test, Part B

defines a factor of visuospatial intelli-

gence/ability, accounting for 12% of the vari-

ance. The third factor, defined by loadings from

Digit Span, Serial Digits, Mental Control, and

PASAT, represents a dimension of atten-

tiodimmediate memory and information pro-

cessing, accounting for 11.3% of the variance.

The fourth factor, defined by Information and

Vocabulary, defines a dimension of verbal intel-

ligence/ability, accounting for 10.7% of the

variance. Again, Serial Digits reflected a stron-

ger association with attentionhmmediate mem-

ory and information processing than with gen-

Table

I .

Factor Analysis Using Immediate RecalllRecognition Memory Raw Scores.

Test

1

Factors

2 3 4

Serial Digits

EPAT

VSRT

Visual Reproduction

CRM

CVMT

Mental Control

Digit Span

PASAT

Trail Making Test, Part

B

Block Design

Object Assemb ly

Information

Vocabulary

.46

.69

.68

.42

.67

.49

.07

.I6

.10

-. 16

.34

.I2

.06

.02

.09

.15

.I5

.59

.27

.29

O l

.22

.35

-.

62

.72

.67

.05

11

.57

. I 8

.27

. I 8

-.03

. I 2

.49

.66

.53

-.20

.I2

. I 4

. 1 1

.22

-.02

.I3

-.02

. 12

-.07

I6

.I2

.30

.08

.06

. I 8

.08

.80

.79

Note

N

= 1

12

aEPAT =Ex pan ded Paired Associa te Test; VSRT

=

Verbal Selective R eminding Test; CRM =Continuous R ecog-

nition Memo ry; CVM T = Continuous Visual Memory Test.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


MEMORY TEST CONSTRUCT

VALlDITY 54 I

era1 memo ry, and Trail Ma king Test, Part B re-

flected a stronger association w ith spatia l intelli-

gencefabi l i ty than with a t tent iodimmediate

memory and information processing. By con-

tras t , Visual Reproduct ion de mo nstra ted a

strong er loading with general memory than w ith

spatial intelligen ce/ability , reversing the pattern

obtained in Table

1

when the immediate recall

scores were factored.

Th e second set of factor analyses were per-

f o r m e d o n i m m e d i a t e a n d d e l a y e d r e -

c a l l l r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s w h i ch h a d b e e n

residualized for age. Age was regressed on each

memory, attention, and intellectual ability mea-

sure, with subseq uent analyses performed

on

the

residual variance of each variable that was not

accounted for by age.

For the immediate recall/recognition age-

residualized score analysis , the eigenvalues for

the f irst four compo nents in the unrotated solu-

tion were

4.75,

1.66,

1.40,

and 1.29.

The

final

varimax-rotated principal axis solution is dis-

played in Table

3 .

Th e eigenvalues for the vari-

max solution are

2.01

for factor

I ,

1.92 for fac-

tor 2 , 1.57 for factor

3,

and 1.54 for factor 4,

account ing fo r 50 .3% of the variance. Th e first

factor, defined by loadings from EPAT, VSRT,

CRM, CVMT, and Serial Digits defines a di-

mension of g eneral (verbal and visual) memory,

accounting for 14.4% of the variance. Th e sec-

ond factor , defined by loadings from B lock De-

sign, Object A ssembly, Trail Mak ing Test, Part

B,

and Visual Reproduction, represents a dimen-

sion of visuospatial intelligence/ability, accoun t-

ing for

13.7%

of the variance. Th e third factor ,

defined by loadings from Information and Vo-

cabulary, represents a dime nsion of verbal intel-

ligencelabili ty, accounting for

1

1.2%

of the

variance. The fourth factor, defined by loadin gs

from Digit Span, Serial Digits, the PASAT, and

Mental Control, defines a dimension

of

atten-


cessing, accounting for 1

1 .O

of the variance.

I t is noteworthy that the loadings remain qu ite

similar when comparing the age-residualized

solution in Table

3

to the raw score solution in

Table

2.

Factor Analysis Using Delayed RecalURecognition Memory Test Raw Scores.

Testa

1

Factors

2

3

4

Serial Dig its

EPAT

VSRT

Visual Reproduction

CRM

CVMT

Mental Control

Digit Span

PASAT

Trail Making Test, Part B

Block Design

Object Assembly

Information

Vocabularv

.41

.47

.73

.68

.56

.55

.04

. I3

.16

-.2

1

3.5

.I1

.06

.03

.06

. I 2

.I0

.33

. I 9

.2

1

.06

.23

.34

-.61

.66

.69

.04

.09

.61

.05

.21

.20

. I 8

.02

.50

.66

.51

-.17

.I7

. I3

.12

.21

-.03

.08

-.03

.I3

-.20

.16

. I2

.30

.09

.04

.I8

.08

.78

.80

Note . N = 112.

a

EPAT

=

Expanded Paired Associate Test; VSRT

=

Verbal Selective Reminding

Test;

CRM = Continuous

Recognition Memory; CVM T

=

Continuous Visual Memory Test.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


5 4 2

Table I , with the exception of the reversal of

factors 3 and 4. Also noteworthy are patterns

similar to those observed in the raw score anal-

ysis, with Serial Digits reflecting a stronger

loading with a t tent ionhmmediate memory and

information processing than with general mem-

ory, Immediate Visual Reproduction reflecting

a stronger association with visuospatial intelli-

gencelabili ty than with general memory, and

Trail M aking Test, Part B demon strating an as-

sociation with visuospatial intelligence/problem

solving rather than attentiod imm ediate memo ry

and information processing.

These apparent sim ilar it ies in factor structure

were evaluated with Cattell 's salient similar ity

index (Cattell, Balcar, Horn,

&

Nesselroade,

1969; Tabachnick

&

Fidell , 1989). The salient

similarity index or

s

which can range between

0

and

I ,

evaluates similar it ies in the pattern of

loadings between tw o separate factor solutions,

and is derived by completing

a

contingency ta-

ble of positively salient, negatively salient, and

hyperplane (nonsalient) loadings. Saliency of

GLENN J . LARRABEE AND GLENN CURTISS

loadings must be specif ied prior to completion

of the table. In this case, saliency was specified

to be .40. Positively salient load ings are positive

loadin gs of .40 or greater ; the converse holds for

negatively salient loadings. Hence, comparing

factor

1

in Table

1

to factor

1

in Table 3, five

variables are positively salient (Serial Digits,

EPAT, VSRT, CR M , and C VM T), none are neg-

atively salient, eight variables are nonsalient and

fall

in

the hyperplane (Mental Control, Digit

Span, PASAT, Trail Ma king Test, Part B, Block

Design, Obje ct Assembly, Information, and Vo-

cabulary) , and one variable falls outside the

hyperplane (Visual Reprodu ction, which is posi-

tively salient

in

Table

I ,

but nonsalient

in

Table

3). Utilizing formulae provided by C attell et al . ,

(1969) and Tabachnick and Fidell (l989), an s

of .9 1 is obtain ed, p <

.OO

I . For the comparison

of the raw score an d age residualized factor 2, s

= 1 OO,

p

< .002.

Comp arison of raw factor 3 and

age residualized factor 4 yielded s = I .OO, p <

,002, and comparison of raw factor 4 with age-

residualized factor

3

yielded

s = 1 .OO, 17 <

.O

12.

Table

3.

Factor Analysis Using Im mediate RecaW Recognition Me mory Test Scores Residualized for Age

Test

1

Factors

2 3

4

Serial Digits

EPAT

VSRT

Visual Reproduction

C R M

C V M T

Mental Control

Digit Span

PASAT

Trail M aking Test, Part

B

BlockDesign

Object Assembly

Information

Vocabulary

.45

.h7

.h6

.36

.65

.45

.05

. I 4

.09

-.I0

.29

. I 1

. I6

.03

.09

.o9

. I 2

55

.24

.25

.07

.2 1

3 6

-.

58

.69

.67

. I5

. I 3

-.o I

. I 7

.o

.24

-.02

.2 I

.I3

3 2

.08

.oo

.2s

.09

.80

.7u

.57

. I 8

.26

. I6

-.05

. I0

.40

.66

.52

- .I8

.

0

. I3

. I3

.23

Note . N

=

1

12.

''

EPAT

=

Expanded Paired Associate

Test;

VSRT

=

Verbal Selective Reminding Test; C R M

=

Continuous

Recogni t ion Memory; CVMT = Continuous Visual Mem ory Test.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


MEMORY

TEST

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY 543

Altogether these analyses provided strong sta-

tistical support for the similarity of the immedi-

ate raw score and immediate age-residualized

factor structures.

For the delayed recall/recognition age-resi-

dualized score analysis, the eigenvalues for the

first four components

in

the unrotated solution

were 4.45,

1.75, 1.35,

and 1.33. The final vari-

max-rotated principal axis solution is displayed

in Table 4. The eigenvalues for this varimax so-

lution are 2.04 for factor l ,

l

.58 for factor 2,

1.55

for factor 3, and

1.55

for factor 4, account-

ing for 48% of the variance. The first factor,

defined by loadings from the VSRT, Visual Re-

production,

CRM,

CVMT, EPAT, and Serial

Digits, defines a general (verbal and visual)

memory factor, accounting for 14.6%

of

the

variance. The second factor, defined by loadings

from Block Design, Object Assembly, and Trail

Making Test, Part B, represents a dimension of

visuospatial intelligence/ability, accounting for

I I

.3% of the variance. The third factor, defined

by loadings from Information and Vocabulary,

defines a dimension of verbal intelli-

gencelability, accounting for

I I . I

of the vari-

ance. The fourth factor, defined by loadings

from Digit Span, Serial Digits, Mental Control,

and

t he

PASAT, defines a dimension of atten-

tiodimmediate memory and information pro-

cessing, accounting for

1

I .

1

of the variance.

The results obtained

in

the age residualized

analysis are quite similar to those obtained

in

the

raw score analysis

with

the exception of the re-

versal of factors 3 and 4. Other noteworthy find-

ings include the stronger association of Serial

Digits with attentionhmmediate memory and

information processing than with general mem-

ory and the association of Trail Making Test,

Part

B

with visuospatial intelligencelability

rather than attentionlimmediate memory and

information processing. Also, the primary asso-

ciation of Delayed Visual Reproduction is with

general memory rather than with spatial intelli-

gencelability, the opposite of the pattern found

for Immediate Visual Reproduction.

Similarity of the delayed raw score

and

de-

Table 4. Factor Analysis Using Delayed RecalllRecognition M emory Test Scores Residualized for Age.

Test

1

Factors

2 3

4

Serial Digits

EPAT

VSRT

.40 .06 -.02 . 6 /

.44

.09

. I0

.04

.72 .07 .00 .20

Visual Reproduction .65

.29

20 .I9

CRM

.55 .I9 - . I9 . I6

C V M T

. 5 I

.I5

.22

.oo

Mental Control

.02 .06

. I 2 .51

Digit Span . I

I .22 .3 .66

PASAT

15 3 4 .09 .50

Trail Makin g Test, Part B -.I4 -.

58

-.O

1

-.I6

Block D esign .28 .63

.26

.IS

Object Assembly

.I5 .70 .09 . I 1

Information

.I6

. I3

.77 .I5

Vocabu

1

ary . s . I I .79 .22

Note

N

= 112

a

EPAT

=

Expanded Paired Associate Test; VSRT

=

Verbal Selective Reminding Test; CRM = Continuous

Recognit ion Memory; CV MT

=

Continuous Visual Memory Test.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


5 4 4

GLENN

J

LARRABEE AND GLENN CURTISS

~

layed age-residualized factor structure was ana-

lyzed with Cattell’s

s

pecifying saliency

as

.40

or greater . The comparison of delayed raw fac-

tor

1

with delayed age-residualized factor 1

yielded s = 1 .00, p < .001 The compar ison of

delayed raw factor 2 with delayed ag e-residua-

lized factor 2 yielded s = 1.00, p

<

,012. Com-

parison of delayed raw factor 3 and delayed age-

residualized factor 4 resulted in s

= 1.00,p <

,002, and compar ison of delayed raw factor 4

with d elayed age-residualized factor

3

yielded s

=

1

.00,

p <

,012. These results provide strong

statistical support for the similarity of the de-

layed raw and delayed age-residualized factor

structures.

DISCUSSION

The p resent data sup port the construct validity

of the EPAT, VSRT, Delayed Visual Reproduc-

t io n , C R M , a n d C V M T

as

measures of learning

and m emory, and supp ort the construct validity

o f t h e P A S A T a s

a

m e a s u r e o f a t t e n -

t iodimmediate memory and information pro-

cessing. Consistent with previou s factor analy-

ses of verbal learning and mem ory procedures,

the loadings of the EPAT and VSRT on the

memory factor were consistent, ir respective of

whether the immed iate or delayed recall scores

were factored (Larrabee et al . , 1985; Leonberger

et al ., 1990, 1992; Smith et a] . , 1992).

Results for the purported measures of v isua l

memory were different than in previous factor

analytic investigations, in tha t the CRM and

CV M T showed loadings on the general m emory

factor, irrespective of whether they were based

on acquisit ion versus delayed recogn ition. This

differs from the results for the W M S Visual R e-

production subtest, which showed

a

stronger

association with spatial intelligencelabili ty than

mem ory fo r immediate recalllacquisit ion, and a

stronger association with memory than spatial

abili ty for the delayed recall score, a pattern typ-

ically reported for this measure (Larrabee et al.,

1985, 1992) . These results sugges t that the C RM

and CV M T are purer measures of mem ory; that

is, the acquisit ion tr ials are not confounded with

spatial ability, contrary to the W M S Visual Re-

production. The failure to f ind a separate, mo-

dality specif ic visual mem ory factor is similar to

several other factor analyses (Larrabee et

al.,

1985; Leonberger et al . , 1990, 1992; Smith et

al., 1992), but do es differ from th e Larrabee et

a] . , (1992) study, which did report

a

modality

specific visual memory factor defined by the

C V M T and Visual Reproduction delayed scores.

This may be a function of differences in test

variables and subjects. The Larrabee et

al.,

1

992) analyses were based on normal controls,

and substituted Shipley Vocabulary for WAIS-R

Vocabulary, Picture Comp letion fo r Object As-

sembly, and an experimental vigilence test

(which did not load on any factor) for WMS

Mental Control.

The results for the W M S Visual Reproduction

bear further comme nt. The loading pattern

of

.42

on memory and .59 on spatial intelligence for

immediate raw score recall, and .68 on memo ry

and

.33

on spatial intelligence for delayed recall

is quite similar to the results reported by

Larrabee et al., 1985 ( .41 on memory, .66 on

spatial for imm ediate recall; .59

on

memory,

.5

1

on sp atial for delayed recall) . This can be con-

trasted with the factor loadings reported by

Leonberger e t

al.,

for the W MS -R Visual Rep ro-

duction I and I1 (1990, 1992). In the Leonberger

e t

al.,

( 1990) investigation employing the WM S-

R , WAIS, and Halstead Reitan Neuropsych ology

Battery (HRNB), WMS-R Visual Reproduction

I loaded .72 on spatial ability and .21

on

mem-

ory, while WMS-R Visual Reproduct ion I1

loaded . 66 on spatial abili ty and .44 on memory.

In the Leonb erger et al . , (1992) study, employ-

ing

t he

WM S-R, WAIS-R, and HRN B, WMS-R

Visual Reproduction I loaded .64 on spatial abil-

i ty, and .17 on memory, w ith Visual Reproduc-

tion

I1

loading .55 on spatial ability and .49 on

memory. Altogether , the current analyses, and

previous data of Larrabee et al . , (1985) and

Leonberger e t

al.,

(1990 , 1 992) suggest that on a

factorial basis , the original W M S Visual R epro-

duction subtest in delayed reproduction format

is a better measure of memory than the WM S-R

Visual Reprod uction

11,

which is more strongly

associated with spatial abili ty. This may be sec-

ondary to the greater spatial demands inherent in

the WM S-R Visual Reproduction stimuli.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


545EMORY TEST CONSTRU CT VALIDITY

~

Th e present data provide only partial support

for the construct validity of Serial Digit Learn-

ing

as

a measure of verbal learning a nd memo ry.

Although this test loads

on

the general memory

factor, its major association is with the atten-


cessing factor. The findings of shared loadings

between these two factors do suppo rt the previ-

ous report of greater sensitivity of Serial Digit

Learning to brain disease than the traditional

Digit Span procedure (Hamsher, Benton,

&

Digre, 1980).

The association of the PASAT, Digit Span.

and Mental C ontrol with the sa me factor is simi-

la r

to previous factor analytic investigations

demonstrating the close interrelationship of at-

tention, speed of processing, and immediate

memory (Larrabee, Kane, & Schuck, 1983;

Larrabee et

al., 1985;

Leonberger et al.,

1990,

1992; Wec hsler, 198 7). Th e association of Trail

Making Test, Part B with spatial intelligence/

ability rather than the attentionhm mediate mem-

ory and information processing factor is note-

worthy, given prior chara cterizatio ns of this test

as

a

measure of attention and information pro-

cessing (Lezak.

1983;

Mirsky, 1989). Mirsky

( 1989) reported a perceptual-mo tor speed factor ,

which had lo adings from the Trail Mak ing Test,

letter cancellation, WAIS-R Digit S ymbol, and

the Stroo p Test, on

a

factor separate from Digit

Span and Arithmetic. Hence, the cu rrent results

may be due to the absen ce of perceptual-motor

speed variables

i n

the present study. However,

a

prior factor analysis including the

WM S -R.

WAIS-R, and HRNB demonstra ted

a

complex

loading pattern for Trail Making Test, Part

B,

which loaded on a spatial ability as well as a

perceptual-motor speed factor (Leonberger el

al., 1992). Additionally, Leonberger, Nicks,

Goldfader, and Munz ( I99

I

) reported a primary

loading for Trail Mak ing Test, Part B on a factor

defined by the Seashore Rhythm and Finger

Tapping tests, with secon dary loadings

on a

fac-

tor defined by Digit Span and Mental Control.

and on

a

factor defined by WAIS Performance

IQ and the HRNB Tactual Performance Test.

Finally, Swiercinsky and colleagues reported

multiple loadings for Trail Making Test, Part B.

including associations with spatial functioning.

motor speed and f ine motor coordination, and

concentration (Swiercinsky, 1979; Swiercinsky

&

How ard, 1982). The se data sugg est that Trail

Making, Par t B is

a

complex, multi-factorial

cognitive task.

The stability of the present factor solution,

with similar findings for the raw score and the

age-residualized factor structure, is consistent

with prior factor analy tic investigations com par-

ing raw scores and age-adjusted scores (Crook

&

Larrabee, 1988;Delis e t al., 1988; Larrabee et

al. , 1992). Hence, although memory tests show

definite age-associated level of performance

effects , the factor structure appears to be invari-

ant across the age range. Consequ ently, the cli-

nician can be assured that the same memory

constructs are being assessed across the age

range , even though there ar e age-related level of

performance changes in these constructs.

I n closing, Fame cautions are appropriate con-

cerning the generalizabili ty of the current re-

sults , given the relatively small sample size and

subject- to-variable ratio. The similarity of load-

ing patterns for the EPAT, VSRT, Immediate

and Delayed Visual Reproduction, WAIS-R

subtests (Information, Vocabulary, Digit Span,

Block Design, Object Assembly) and WMS

Mental Control to previously published solu-

tions, supports the generalizabili ty of results for

these procedures. Further replication of the load-

ing patterns for Serial Digits , CRM, CVMT,

PASAT, and Trail Making Test, Part B with

a

larger sample size is recommended to support

the generalizability of the current findings for

these procedures.

REFERENCES

Benton, A.L. ,

Hamsher, K.

deS.,

Varney,

N.R.,

&

Spreen,

0 (1983).

Contributions

to

iieuropsycho-

logical as.se.s,snzent. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Bornstein, R.A., Chelune, G.J. (1989).Factor struc-

ture

of

the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised

in

relation

to

age and education level. Archives o j

Clinical Neuropsycholugy,

15-24 .

Brittain,

J.L.,

LaMarche,

J.A.,

Reeder,

K.P.,

Roth,

D.L., & Boll,

T.J.

1 99

1).

Effects of age and IQ on

Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT)

performance. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


546 GLENN J LARRABEE AND GLENN CURTISS

~

163-

175.

Buschke, H. I 973). Selective reminding for analysis

of memory and learning. Journul

of

Verhal Lenrn-

irig and Verbal Beh avio r,

12,

543-550.

Cattell, R.B., Balcar, K.R., Horn, J.L.,

&

Nesselroade,

J.R. (1969). Factor matching procedures: An im-

provement of the s index; with tables. Educrrtional

cind

Psycliologicnl Mensurenient, 29 , 78 1-792.

Crook, T.H.,

&

Larrabee, G.J. (1988). Interrelation-

ships among everyday memory tests: Stability of

factor structure with age. Nriiropsyc.holofiy,

2,

I

-

12.

Cunningham, W.R. ( 1986). Psychometric perspec-

tives: Validity and reliability. In L.W. Poon, T.

Crook, K.L. Davis, C. Eisdorfer, B.J. Gurland,

A.W. Kaszniak, & L.W. Thompson (Eds.),

H m d -

hook

,for clinical nieinory

asse.ssnient o f older

cidu1t.s

(pp. 27-3

1

).

Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Delis, D.C., Freeland, J., Kramer, J.H., & Kaplan,

E.

(1988). Integrating clinical asse

tive neuroscience: Construct va

variate verbal learning test. Journal

qf

Consulting

Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., Ober, B.A.

(

1987). Ca liforn ia Verhril Leurnirig

Test.

Reseurch

edition.

Manutrl .

San Antonio: The Psychological

Corporation.

Denman, S.B. ( 1984).

Denmuri

Neuropsychology

Memory

Scale. Charleston, SC: Author.

Erickson, R.C., & Scott, M.L. I 977). Clinical mem-

ory testing: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84,

Gorsuch, R.L. (1983).

Factor analysis

(2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gronwall, D.M.A. (1977). Paced auditory serial addi-

tion task: A measure

of

recovery from concussion.

Perceptuul and Motor

Skills

4 4 , 361-373.

Hamsher, K., Benton,A.L., Dig re,

K.

(1980). Serial

digit learning: Normative and clinical aspects.

Journul

of

Clinical Neirropsyc~icrlog~,

39-50.

Hannay, H.J., & Levin, H.S. (1985). Selective Re-

minding Test:

An

examination of the equivalence

of four forms. Journal

o

Clinical and Exprrimen-

ttil Neuropsycliology,

7

25

1-263.

Hannay, H.J., & Levin, H.S. (1989).

Visual

continu-

ous recognition memory in normal and closed-

head-injured adolescents. Journal of Cliniccil and

Experimental Neuropsychology, I

I

444-460.

Hannay, H.J., Levin, H.S., Grossman, R.G. (1979).

Impaired recognition memory after head injury.

Cortex,

15

269-283.

xrabee, G.J. (1987). Further cautions

in

interpreta-

tion of comparisons between the WAIS-R and the

Wechsler Memory Scale. Journal

of

Clinical and

Experimental Neuropsychology,

9,456-460.

xrabee, G.J. (1992). On modifying recognition

ry tests for detection of malingering. Neuro-

ho logy 5 6 ,

123-

130.

I 130-

149.

) lOgv, 6, 23-27.

Larrabee, G.J., & Crook, T.H. I 988). Assessment of

drug effects in age-related memory disorders: Clin-

ical, theoretical and psychometric considerations.

hoph~rrnicicology ulletin, 24 , 5 15-522.

e, G.J., Kane, R.L., & Schuck, J.R. (1983).

Factor analysis of the WAIS and Wechsler Memo-

ry Scale: An analysis of the construct validity of

the Wechsler Memory Scale. Journal

o f Clinicul

Neuropsychology,

5

159- 168.

Larrabee, G.J., Kane, R.L., Schuck, J.R.,

&

Francis,

D.E. (1985). The construct validity

of

various

memory testing procedures. Journrrl

of’

Clinicrrl

iiiitl Exprrinzentcil Neur~ i~is?.c.holog y, 239-250.

Larrabee, G.J., Largen, J.W.,

&

Levin,

H.S. (

1985).

Sensitivity

of

age-decline resistant (“Hold”)

WAIS subtests to Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of

Clinicul

t r nd

E.xperirneritu1 Neurol,sychology,

7

Larrabee, G.J., Trahan,

D.E.,

& Curtiss, G. (1992).

497-504.

Construct validity of the Continuous

ory Test.

Archives

of’Clinicid

Neiirop

395-405.

Larrabee, G.J., Trahan, D.E., Curtiss, G. & Levin,

H.S. (1988). Normative data for the Verbal Selec-

tive Reminding Test. N e u r o ~ , s y c h o l o ~ y ,, 173-

182.

Leonberger, F.T., Nicks, S.D., Goldfader, P.R., &

Larrabee, G.J. (1990). Construct validity of the

WMS-R indices (Abstract). The

C1inic.d

Neuro-

psychologist ,

4 , 284.

Leonberger, F.T., Nicks, S.D., Goldfader, P.R.,

&

Munz, D.C. (1991). Factor analysis of the Wechs-

ler Memory Scale-Revised and the Halstead-Reitan

Neuropsychological Battery. The

Clinical Neuro-

psvchologist ,

5

83 88.

Leonberger, F.T., Nicks, S.D., Larrabee, G.J., &

Goldfader, P.R. (1992). Factor structure of the

Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised within

a

compre-

hensive neuropsychological battery.

Nruro-psy-

chology 6

239-249.

Levin, H.S. , Benton, A.L., & Grossman, R.G. (1982).

Neurohehaviorul consequences qf closed head in-

jury.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Levin, H.S., Mattis,

S.,

Ruff, R.M., Eisenberg, H.M.,

Marshall, L.F., Tabaddor, K., High, W.M.,

&

Frankowski, R.F.

I

987). Neurobehavioral out-

come following minor head injury: A three-center

study. Journal

of

Neurosu

Lezak, M.D. (1983). Neurop

(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Luring, D.W., Papanicolaou, A.C. (1987). Memory

assessment in neuropsychology: Theoretical con-

siderations and practical utility. Journal

of

Clinical

und Experimental Neuropsychology, 9, 340-358.

Malec, J.F., Ivnik, R.J.,

&

Hinkeldy, N.S. (1991). Vi-

sual spatial learning test.

Psychological

Assess-

ment:

A

Journal

of

Consulting

crnd

Clinical Psy-

Mayes, A.R. (1986). Learning and memory disorders

chology,

3

82-88.

8/10/2019 10.1080@01688639508405144


M E M O R Y T E S T C O N S T R U C T V AL I DI T Y 547

and their assessment. N r i i r ~ ~ ~ ~ . s y c / i o l o ~ i ~ i ,

4

25-

39.

Mirsky, A.F. ( 19x9). The neuropsychology of atten-

tion: Eleme nts of a com plex behavior. In E. Perec-

man (Ed.) ,

ritegrutirig

t h eo r y

a r ~ d p r r i c t i c ~

ri

clini-

Reitan, R.M., & Wolfson, D.

1985).

The Hrrlstecid-

hologicul Test

Buttery. Theory

t i r i d

r ~ l i r r i c ~ c i lriterprettrtion.

Tucson, AZ: N europsy-

choiogy Press.

Roman, D.D., Edwall , G.E., Buchanan, R.J. , & Pat-

ton,

J .H. 1991).

Extended norms for the Paced

Auditory Serial Addition Task. The Clinicul Nrri-

r ~ i ~ ~ , s y ~ ~ l 7 o l o g i . s 1 ,

. 33-40.

Russell, E.W.

1975).

A multiple scoring method for

the assessment of complex memory functions.

J o u

niul

of

Cons~iltirig

ind

Cliriical

Psychology ,

43 ,

Smith,

G.E.,

Male c, J.F., & Ivnik, R.J.

1992).

Valid-

ity of the construct of nonverbal memory: A factor

analytic study in a normal elderly sample. J o u r n d

oj Clinicu1

uric1 Experimental

Neiirops?lchology,

14

21 1-221.

Swiercinsky, D.P. 1979). Factorial pattern descrip-

tion and comparison of functional abilities in neu-

ropsychological assessment. Perceptiral and Motor

Swiercinsky, D.P.,

&

Howard, M.E.

1982).

Program-

matic series of factor analyses for evaluating the

structure of neuropsycho logical test batteries. Clin-

ical

Neuropsychology

4 , 147- 152.

800-809.

Ski l l s , 4K 23 1-24 I .

Tabachnick, B.G . , & Fidell, L.S.

1989).

Ilsirig rruil?i-

vrrriute .stufistics 2 n d ed.). Philadelphia: Harper &

Row.

Trahan, D.E., & Larrabee, G.J.

1988).

Proje.ssioriu1

riiuriuul:

Contiri~ious

Visual

M enl o r y

Test.

Odessa,

FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Trahan, D.E. , Larrabee. G.J . , & Quintana, J .W.

1990).

Visual recognition memory in normal

adults and patients with unilateral vascu lar lesions.

Joiirnnl of Cliniccil t r t r d

Experirnerztul

Neuropsy-

Trahan, D.E., Larrabee, G.J. , Quintana, J .W., Go ethe ,

K.E., & Willingham, A.C.

1989).

Development

and clinical validation of an Expanded Paired As-

sociate Test with delayed reca ll.

The Cl ir ii c d Nru -

E., Quintana, J . , Willingham, A.C., Go e-

the, K.E.

(

1988).

Th e Visual Reproduction S ubtest:

Standardization and clinical validation of a delayed

recall procedure. Neurop

Wechsler, D.

(

1945).

A

standardized memory scale

for clinical use . The Joumu/ of fsychologv,

9

87-

95.

Wechsler, D.

I

981). W A I S - Rmnrirrul. New York: Th e

Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler D. 1

987).

Wechsler Mernory Scule-Revised

Manuul. San Antonio, TX : The Psychological Cor-

poration.

Williams, J .M.

199

I .

Mernory

A.s.se.ssnzent

Scales.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources,

Inc.

C I I O I OR J

12

85

7-872.

ologi .st , 3 , 169- 83.

Documents

10.1080@01688639508405144