1 / 14

Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT)

Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT). SPAT Structure. Similar to WMS “paired associates” subtest 14 sign pairs – 7 easy & 7 hard Based on sign associate frequency research Immediate recall phase (4 learning trails) Delayed recall phase (free, then cued) 9 primary scores 3 immediate recall

bjorn
Download Presentation

Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Signed Paired Associates Test(SPAT)

  2. SPAT Structure • Similar to WMS “paired associates” subtest • 14 sign pairs – 7 easy & 7 hard • Based on sign associate frequency research • Immediate recall phase (4 learning trails) • Delayed recall phase (free, then cued) • 9 primary scores • 3 immediate recall • 6 delayed recall

  3. SPAT Studies • DeMatteo, Pollard, & Lentz, 1987 • Initial norms, negative correlation with age • Pollard, Rediess, & DeMatteo, 2005 • 38 healthy deaf adults • Mean age 27.7 (s.d., 4.8, range 18-34) • 55% male, 45% female • 35 deaf adults referred for neuropsych. testing • Mean age 30.6 (s.d., 8.9, range 18-57) • 59% male, 41% female

  4. Pollard, Rediess & DeMatteo, 2005 • Healthy sample • Screened for neurological deficits • WAIS-R PIQ (required >70 to participate) • SPAT, ASL Stories Test administered • Clinical sample • Suspected of brain impairment • PIQ or Ravens IQ > 70 required for study • SPAT and other tests deemed necessary

  5. 2005 SPAT Study Results • Age of two samples not significantly different • Mean IQ differed (p = .007) • Healthy 103.9 (s.d., 13.0, range 75-128) • Clinical 94.3 (s.d., 16.1, range 70-124 • Performance on nine SPAT scores very similar to DeMatteo, Pollard, & Lentz, 1987

  6. SPAT Norms

  7. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) • All 13 scores (9 primary scores and 4 trial-by-trail learning totals) significantly differed between healthy and clinical groups. • Learning curves evidenced for both groups but harder for clinical sample • PIQ positively correlated with all 9 primary SPAT scores

  8. Healthy v. Clinical Performance

  9. SPAT-PIQ Correlations

  10. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) • Retention scores • Recall (free and delayed) expressed as percentage of total learned by trial 4 • 69% retention at delayed free recall • ~100% retention delayed fee + cued recall • These percentages the same for both groups • No significant differences in retention scores

  11. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) • Forward step-wise discriminate analysis • What contributed most to SPAT performance? • 7 of 9 primary SPAT scores & PIQ/Ravens • Final analysis included: • Immediate recall hard total • PIQ/Ravens IQ • Delayed free + cued recall hard total • Consistent finding that learning and retention of hard pairs is most clinically salient aspect

  12. “It acts like we expect a verbal learning and memory test to act” • Performance patters similar to WMS P.A. and other “hearing” verbal tests • Improved retention over learning trials • Semantically related easier than non-related • PIQ positively correlated with performance • Age negatively correlated with performance (DeMatteo, et al., 1987 and pilot study only) • These findings speak to construct validity

  13. Construct and Discriminate Validity • In every performance indicator tested, the clinical sample performed more poorly than the healthy sample • Finding that immediate and delayed recall total hard scores best differentiated the two samples parallels research showing that semantically unrelated word pair learning is a sensitive measure of memory impairment in hearing clinical samples and healthy elderly people • Sensitive but not too specific = more useful test

  14. Future Research & Clinical Ideas • Norms needed for elderly and children! • Interpreted vs. direct administration • Correlation with education • Other clinical samples • Deaf subpopulations (e.g. at risk etiologies) • Performance of those with less ASL fluency • Correlation with non-verbal learning tests • Correlation with “hearing” verbal learning tests • Altered administration (voice, length, delay period)

More Related