Word-face discrepancies on the warrington recognition memory test: Absence of laterality and material specific findings

Abstractsfiom the 17thAnnualMeeting

99

group differenceson severalBQSS scoresacrossall three conditions.On many scores,the ControlsperformedbetterthanboththeUM andCMgroups,withno differencesbetweenthe lattertwo.On othermeasures,boththeCM andControlgroupsperformedbetterthantheUM group. In order to determineif the BQSS could discriminatebetween CM subjectsand a group of 18 patients with documentedtraumatic brain injury but without any pending litigation,a logisticregressionanalysiswas performed,resultingin an 81% correctoverall classificationrate. These resultsindicatethat the BQSS may be useful in the detectionof malingering. Sweet, J. J., & Demakis,G. J. Word-Face Discrepancies on the Barrington Recognition Memory Test: Absence of Literality and Material Specific Findings. Two studieswere conductedto assessthe purportedabilityof the WarringtonRecognition

MemoryTest (RMT) to be sensitiveto literalized brain dysfunctionand material specific (verbal vs. nonverbal)memory impairment.In Study 1, a heterogeneoussample of 227 patientswith independentconfirmationof brain disorderwere classifiedinto three groups basedon RMTFacesandWordssubtestscores.Group 1patients(n = 37) scoredsignificantly higheron wordsvs. faces,Group2 patientsscoredsignificantlyhigheron facesvs. words (n = 35), and Group 3 (n = 154) patients scored equally on faces and words. Contrary to expectations,Group 1 patients scored better than Group 2 on both W,MS-Rsubtests of Logical Memory and VisualReproduction.In addition,neither group showed a material specificadvantagethat wouldbe consistentwith the word versusface discrepancy.In Study 2, different groups of patients with documentedright or left hemispheredamage were assessed.Again,contraryto expectations,therewereno significantdifferencesbetweenthese groupson theWordsandFacessubtests.Overall,theseresultsquestionthe apparentmeaning of the RMT Wordsvs. Faces discrepancyscore. Russell,M. L., & Harvey,S. C. Rebottled Wine: The Expanded Halstead Batteiy vs. The Halstead Russell Neurvpsychological System-Evidence for Consistent Differences.

It hasbecomeincreasinglyclearthatcontemporarynormsare neededfor the HalsteadReitan Battery.Two of the most popukwcontemporarysystemsare the ExpandedHalsteadReitan Batte~ by Heaton,Grantand Matthews(1991),and the HalsteadRussellNeuropsychological Evaluation System (1994). Although both systems use large population normative samples,stratifiedby age and education,our subjectiveexperiencewhenusingboth systems in a large hospitalpracticewas that the HRNEStendedto systematicallyunderestimatethe degreeof dysfunction.To assessthe validityof thatassumption,statisticalcomparisonswere made betweenthe t-scoresfor the index tests commonto both systems.Fifty consecutive cases seen between Januaryand June 1997were analyzedand, consistentwith our earlier impressions,significantdifferencesbetweenthe two data baseswere noted.Practicalimplicationsstemmingfrom these findingsare discussedas are recommendationsfor additional research. Teichner,G., Golden,C.J., Crum,T., & Bradley,J. Establishing the Reliability and Validityof the Luria Nebraska Neumpsychological Battery-lII. The presentstudypresentsthe most recent data pertainingto the developmentof the Luria

NebraskaNeuropsychologicalBattery-III.This new test batteryis derivedfrom a varietyof sourcesincludingthe previousLuria-NebraskaBatteries,and existingtests in psychology, speech,and education.The final versionof this test batterycomprises33 scalesas follows: GeneralOrientation,MotorCoordination,PurposefulMovement,Drawing,NonverbalAu-

—

—