Meghan Beier1, Abbey J Hughes2, Michael W Williams3, Elizabeth S Gromisch4. 1. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Division of Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology, Suite 413, Church Professional Building, 98 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. Electronic address: mbeier1@jhu.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Division of Rehabilitation Psychology and Neuropsychology, Suite 413, Church Professional Building, 98 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA. Electronic address: abbeyjhughes@jhmi.edu. 3. University of Houston, Department of Psychology, 3695 Cullen Blvd, Heyne Building Rm 126, Houston, TX 77204, USA. Electronic address: MWwilliams2@uh.edu. 4. Mandell Center for Multiple Sclerosis, Mount Sinai Rehabilitation Hospital, Trinity Health Of New England, 490 Blue Hills Avenue, Hartford, CT 06112, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, CT, USA. Electronic address: elizabeth.gromisch@stfranciscare.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) is a common cognitive screening tool. However, administration and scoring can be time-consuming, and its use of proprietary subtests like the California Verbal Learning Test - II (CVLT-II) is financially limiting. Use of the non-proprietary Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) may be provide a valid alternative. OBJECTIVES: To compare the RAVLT and CVLT-II in terms of diagnostic accuracy for detecting cognitive impairment, and to determine optimal cut-scores for the RAVLT. METHODS: 100 participants with MS completed the five learning trials from the RAVLT and CVLT-II. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to compare the measures' sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and to identify optimal cut-scores. RESULTS: Using a criterion of 1.5 SD below the normative sample mean, the RAVLT showed fair to good (κs = 0.21-0.41) agreement with the CVLT-II. A cut-score of 12 on Trials 1 + 2 of the RAVLT showed fair sensitivity (75%) and specificity (76%) and did not differ significantly from the CVLT-II (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Performance on initial learning trials of the RAVLT may provide a brief, valid, and cost-effective alternative to the CVLT-II for screening verbal learning impairments in MS.
BACKGROUND: The Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) is a common cognitive screening tool. However, administration and scoring can be time-consuming, and its use of proprietary subtests like the California Verbal Learning Test - II (CVLT-II) is financially limiting. Use of the non-proprietary Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) may be provide a valid alternative. OBJECTIVES: To compare the RAVLT and CVLT-II in terms of diagnostic accuracy for detecting cognitive impairment, and to determine optimal cut-scores for the RAVLT. METHODS: 100 participants with MS completed the five learning trials from the RAVLT and CVLT-II. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were used to compare the measures' sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and to identify optimal cut-scores. RESULTS: Using a criterion of 1.5 SD below the normative sample mean, the RAVLT showed fair to good (κs = 0.21-0.41) agreement with the CVLT-II. A cut-score of 12 on Trials 1 + 2 of the RAVLT showed fair sensitivity (75%) and specificity (76%) and did not differ significantly from the CVLT-II (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Performance on initial learning trials of the RAVLT may provide a brief, valid, and cost-effective alternative to the CVLT-II for screening verbal learning impairments in MS.
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Elizabeth S Gromisch; Vance Zemon; Ralph H B Benedict; Nancy D Chiaravalloti; John DeLuca; Mary A Picone; Sonya Kim; Frederick W Foley Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2012-07-17 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Mike R Schoenberg; Kyra A Dawson; Kevin Duff; Doyle Patton; James G Scott; Russell L Adams Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: D W Langdon; M P Amato; J Boringa; B Brochet; F Foley; S Fredrikson; P Hämäläinen; H-P Hartung; L Krupp; I K Penner; A T Reder; R H B Benedict Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Ralph H B Benedict; Maria Pia Amato; Jan Boringa; Bruno Brochet; Fred Foley; Stan Fredrikson; Paivi Hamalainen; Hans Hartung; Lauren Krupp; Iris Penner; Anthony T Reder; Dawn Langdon Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Min Ju Kang; Sang Yun Kim; Duk L Na; Byeong C Kim; Dong Won Yang; Eun-Joo Kim; Hae Ri Na; Hyun Jeong Han; Jae-Hong Lee; Jong Hun Kim; Kee Hyung Park; Kyung Won Park; Seol-Heui Han; Seong Yoon Kim; Soo Jin Yoon; Bora Yoon; Sang Won Seo; So Young Moon; YoungSoon Yang; Yong S Shim; Min Jae Baek; Jee Hyang Jeong; Seong Hye Choi; Young Chul Youn Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.796