Brian L Brooks1,2,3, James A Holdnack4, Grant L Iverson5. 1. Neurosciences Program (Brain Injury and Rehabilitation), Alberta Children's Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Departments of Paediatrics, Clinical Neurosciences, and Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4. Pearson Clinical Assessment, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital & Mass General Hospital for Children Sport Concussion Program, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychologists interpret a large number of scores in their assessments, including numerous retest scores to determine change over time. The rate at which healthy children and adolescents obtain reliably improved or declined memory scores when retested has yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to illustrate the prevalence of reliable change scores on memory test batteries in healthy children and adolescents. METHODS: Participants were children and adolescents from test-retest samples from two published memory test batteries (ChAMP and CMS). Reliable change scores (RCI with 90% confidence interval and practice effects) were calculated for the indexes and subtests of each battery. Multivariate base rates involved considering all change scores simultaneously within each battery and calculating the frequencies of healthy children obtaining one or more reliably declined or one or more reliably improved scores. RESULTS: Across both memory batteries, one or more reliably changed index or subtest score was common; however, reliable change on three or more scores was uncommon (i.e., found in <5% of the samples). Base rates of change scores did not differ by parent education. CONCLUSIONS: Having a single reliably changed score on retest is common when interpreting these memory batteries. Multivariate interpretation is necessary when determining cognitive decline and cognitive recovery. Further research is warranted with other measures, other samples, and different retest intervals.
OBJECTIVE: Neuropsychologists interpret a large number of scores in their assessments, including numerous retest scores to determine change over time. The rate at which healthy children and adolescents obtain reliably improved or declined memory scores when retested has yet to be explored. The purpose of this study was to illustrate the prevalence of reliable change scores on memory test batteries in healthy children and adolescents. METHODS: Participants were children and adolescents from test-retest samples from two published memory test batteries (ChAMP and CMS). Reliable change scores (RCI with 90% confidence interval and practice effects) were calculated for the indexes and subtests of each battery. Multivariate base rates involved considering all change scores simultaneously within each battery and calculating the frequencies of healthy children obtaining one or more reliably declined or one or more reliably improved scores. RESULTS: Across both memory batteries, one or more reliably changed index or subtest score was common; however, reliable change on three or more scores was uncommon (i.e., found in <5% of the samples). Base rates of change scores did not differ by parent education. CONCLUSIONS: Having a single reliably changed score on retest is common when interpreting these memory batteries. Multivariate interpretation is necessary when determining cognitive decline and cognitive recovery. Further research is warranted with other measures, other samples, and different retest intervals.
Authors: Steven Paul Woods; Meredith Childers; Ronald J Ellis; Stephanie Guaman; Igor Grant; Robert K Heaton Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2005-09-19 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: R K Heaton; N Temkin; S Dikmen; N Avitable; M J Taylor; T D Marcotte; I Grant Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Breton M Asken; Russell M Bauer; Steven T DeKosky; Zachary M Houck; Charles C Moreno; Michael S Jaffee; Arthur G Weber; James R Clugston Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 9.910