2019
DOI: 10.1080/13854046.2018.1538428
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A tale of two stories: Validity of an alternative story memory test in a sample of older adults

Abstract: Objective: Many patients require repeat neuropsychological evaluations to determine change over time. Repeat evaluations lead to practice effects, which can impact the validity of the assessment. The current study assessed, in older adults, the validity of an alternative set of verbal memory stories created by Newcomer and colleagues (1994).Method: A total 154 of nondemented adults, ages 60 to 92, completed the WMS-III Logical Memory (LM) stories and two Newcomer stories (Carson-Jones) as part of a larger batt… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LHI was impaired in relation to non-LHI in both UC and CC, with sensitivity and specificity above 70%. The findings from the present study agree with those of studies that used the narrative as a whole unit, and verbal inputs and outputs [6][7][8]10,12,20,22 , except that the left-lateralization pattern extended beyond the temporal lobe in this study. Also in line with the present findings, concerning the input, activation that was more left-lateralized was previously observed in functional studies for reading than for listening comprehension 13,21 ; and, concerning the output, a UC: uncued condition; CC: cued condition; LHI: patients with left hemisphere injury; RHI: patients with right hemisphere injury; HP: healthy participants.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…LHI was impaired in relation to non-LHI in both UC and CC, with sensitivity and specificity above 70%. The findings from the present study agree with those of studies that used the narrative as a whole unit, and verbal inputs and outputs [6][7][8]10,12,20,22 , except that the left-lateralization pattern extended beyond the temporal lobe in this study. Also in line with the present findings, concerning the input, activation that was more left-lateralized was previously observed in functional studies for reading than for listening comprehension 13,21 ; and, concerning the output, a UC: uncued condition; CC: cued condition; LHI: patients with left hemisphere injury; RHI: patients with right hemisphere injury; HP: healthy participants.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Nevertheless, since narrative-specificity in brain function may arise at a hemispheric rather than at a regional level 4 , there is a need for validity studies on the role of cerebral laterality of injury in story comprehension and recall, which have been poorly investigated at a hemispheric level. This need arises also in view of the contradictory results regarding laterality and narrative processing, not only from studies on patients with brain impairments 3,6 , and especially on those with temporal lobe epilepsy [7][8][9][10][11][12] , but also from functional or anatomical studies on healthy subjects 4,5,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Requiring episodic memory and performance is associated with left subiculum and hippocampal volume [29] Decreased performance, particularly immediate recall, is observed in temporal lobe resection patients [30]. Variable of interest: total delay recall.…”
Section: Logical Memory Story I Ii Wechsler Memory Scale Third Edition (Wms-iii)-mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The LM subtest of the WMS is the most widely known and used neuropsychological test assessing complex verbal memory (Trifilio et al, 2020). Story memory tests were designed to assess everyday learning and remembering of new declarative information, and have been validated in this respect (Squire, 1987).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%