Donders Jacobus, Nienhuis Jacob B
Psychology Service, Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503, USA.
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007 Mar;13(2):354-8. doi: 10.1017/S1355617707070439.
The performance of 23 patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury on the California Verbal Learning Test, Second Edition (CVLT-II; Delis et al., 2000) was compared with that of 23 matched healthy controls to determine whether recall discriminability indices, which take into account both correct target recall and intrusive errors, would provide better diagnostic classification than traditional variables that are based exclusively on correct recall. Patients with traumatic brain injury recalled fewer correct words, and also made more intrusive errors, on CVLT-II short and long delay, free and cued recall trials (p < .02 for all variables after Stepdown Bonferroni correction). However, recall discriminability indices yielded a classification of clinical versus control participants (72%) that was not significantly different from one based on traditional variables (74%). We conclude that CVLT-II recall discriminability indices do not routinely provide an advantage over traditional variables in patients with traumatic brain injury.
将23例中重度创伤性脑损伤患者在加州言语学习测验第二版(CVLT-II;德利等,2000)上的表现与23名匹配的健康对照者进行比较,以确定考虑正确目标回忆和侵入性错误的回忆辨别指数是否比仅基于正确回忆的传统变量能提供更好的诊断分类。创伤性脑损伤患者在CVLT-II短延迟和长延迟、自由回忆和线索回忆试验中正确回忆的单词更少,侵入性错误也更多(经逐步邦费罗尼校正后,所有变量的p值均小于0.02)。然而,回忆辨别指数对临床参与者与对照参与者的分类准确率为72%,与基于传统变量的分类准确率(74%)没有显著差异。我们得出结论,在创伤性脑损伤患者中,CVLT-II回忆辨别指数通常并不比传统变量具有优势。