Jacobs Monica L, Donders Jacobus
Psychology Service, Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, 235 Wealthy, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49503, USA.
Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007 Feb;22(2):143-9. doi: 10.1016/j.acn.2006.12.002. Epub 2007 Jan 4.
The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) was performed by 200 participants, divided into moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (n=43), mild traumatic brain injury (n=57) and demographically matched control (n=100) groups. Participants with complicating premorbid histories or who scored below 15/16 on the CVLT-II forced choice recognition trial were excluded. There were statistically significant (p<.0001) effects of group status on the CVLT-II total recall discriminability and recognition discriminability indices. Logistic regression revealed that, in the classification of control versus moderate-severe traumatic brain injury, CVLT-II variables were accurate 66-71% overall, but false positive rates ranged from 49 to 54%. In conclusion, average scores on the CVLT-II differ meaningfully between patients with various degrees of severity of traumatic brain injury and controls, but this test should not be used in isolation to determine the presence or absence of acquired memory impairment.
200名参与者接受了加利福尼亚言语学习测验第二版(CVLT-II),这些参与者被分为中度至重度创伤性脑损伤组(n = 43)、轻度创伤性脑损伤组(n = 57)和人口统计学匹配的对照组(n = 100)。有复杂病前史或在CVLT-II强制选择识别试验中得分低于15/16的参与者被排除。组状态对CVLT-II总回忆辨别力和识别辨别力指数有统计学显著影响(p <.0001)。逻辑回归显示,在区分对照组与中度至重度创伤性脑损伤组时,CVLT-II变量总体准确率为66 - 71%,但假阳性率在49%至54%之间。总之,不同程度创伤性脑损伤患者与对照组在CVLT-II上的平均得分有显著差异,但不应单独使用该测试来确定是否存在获得性记忆障碍。