Comparing the Open Trial – Selective Reminding Test results with the California Learning Verbal Test II in multiple sclerosis

Abstract

We compared the California Learning Verbal Test II (CVLT II) and the Open Trial-Selective Reminding Test (OT-SRT) in assessing learning in persons with Multiple Sclerosis. One-hundred and twelve participants with multiple sclerosis performed the OT-SRT and the CVLT II on two different days. All participants completed additional cognitive tests assessing information processing speed (IPS), working memory (WM), and executive functions (EF). By definition, all participants were identified as having impaired learning on the OT-SRT (i.e., z score <-1.0); however, only 38 participants (33.9%) were identified as having impaired learning on the CVLT II (i.e., a z score <-1 total correct responses trials 1-5). The sample was thus divided into two groups, those who failed both tests (Fail-2) and those who failed only one (Fail-1). The Fail-2 group showed poorer performance on EF, WM and IPS in comparison with the Fail-1 group. On the CVLT II, the Fail-1 group showed a significantly greater improvement between trials 1 and 5, as compared with the Fail-2 group. However, the two groups performed similarly on the OT-SRT. Correlation analysis showed that EF is positively correlated with CVLT II learning slope but not with OT-SRT learning slope. The CVLT II and the OT-SRT are not equivalent tests: while the CVLT II appears to be sensitive to overall cognitive dysfunction, the OT-SRT is more sensitive to focal learning and memory impairments.

Executive functioning affects verbal learning process in multiple sclerosis patients: Behavioural and imaging results

“…The present results are in line with those of Costa et al () who found that in pwMS better EF abilities significantly correlated with the use of semantic clustering strategies, resulting in better verbal memory performance on the California Verbal Test‐II (CVLT‐II). Moreover, previous studies reported that pwMS showed difficulties in using encoding strategies during verbal learning (Arnett et al , ; Diamond et al , ).…”

“…The acquisition process has been shown to be influenced by several variables, such as IPS (Chiaravalloti, Stojanovic‐Radic, & DeLuca, ; DeLuca et al , ) and EF (Canellopoulou & Richardson, ; Costa, DeLuca, Costanza, & Chiaravalloti, ; DeLuca et al , ; Fink, Rischkau, et al , ; Sandry, Zuppichini, Rothberg, Valdespino‐hayden, & DeLuca, ). EF refers to a complex construct consisting of several high‐level processes (i.e., working memory, problem‐solving, planning, strategic organization of information, inhibition of response, cognitive flexibility, abstraction, and initiation behaviour) essential to the modulation of lower‐level functions (Diamond, ; Hughes, ).…”

Identifying the Distinct Cognitive Phenotypes in Multiple Sclerosis

“…A second phenotype, mild-verbal memory/semantic fluency, was characterized by mildly decreased performance in SRT and WLG. The data-driven cosegregation of decreased performance in verbal learning and memory and in semantic fluency 40 was likely associated with impaired common semantic clustering strategies 41,42 and lexical access modalities. 43 In line with this explanation, the MRI data in this study showed hippocampal atrophy as a potential pathological substrate.…”

Selecting the Appropriate Memory Test for Patients with Stroke: Criterion Validity of the Buschke Selective Reminding Test

“…Beatty et al (1996) found that words entering CLTR during trials 1 to 12 (acquisition) were more likely to be recalled on the 30-minute delay. The SRT has demonstrated sensitivity to many clinical conditions: differentiating between stroke location (Campbell, Leitner, Miller, & Libben, 2017), depression and dementia (Hart et al, 1987), multiple sclerosis (Costa, DeLuca, Costanza, & Chiaravalloti, 2019;Radomski et al, 2015), and elderly adults with dementia (Campo, Morales, & Martinez-Costillo, 2003). Moreover, scores on the SRT CLTR subscale have been shown to be the most effective at differentiating mild dementia from normal aging (Masur et al, 1989;Salmon et al, 2015).…”

“…The advantages of using the SRT over other measures of memory include emerging research that it is more sensitive than the CVLT-II in detecting memory impairments (Campbell et al, 2017;Costa et al, 2019;Leitner et al, 2017;Salmon et al, 2015) and that it is a freely available, easy to administer, test. The aim of the current study was to provide an updated investigation of the SRT on inpatients during early stages of stroke recovery, examine within and between group correlations on individual test scores, and examine which, if any, test scores best discriminate between healthy individuals and inpatients after stroke.…”