Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:36:48.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Robust Cognitive Change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2012

Timothy A. Salthouse
Timothy A. Salthouse*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Timothy A. Salthouse, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4400. E-mail: salthouse@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two major challenges facing researchers interested in cognitive change are that measures of change are often not very reliable, and they may reflect effects of prior test experience in addition to the factors of primary interest. One approach to dealing with these problems is to obtain multiple measures of change on parallel versions of the same tests in a measurement burst design. A total of 783 adults performed three parallel versions of cognitive tests on two occasions separated by an average of 2.6 years. Performance increased substantially across the three sessions within each occasion, and for all but vocabulary ability these within-occasion improvements were considerably larger than the between-occasion changes. Reliabilities of the changes in composite scores were low, but averages of the three changes had larger, albeit still quite modest, reliabilities. In some cognitive abilities individual differences were evident in the relation of prior test experience and the magnitude of longitudinal change. Although multiple assessments are more time consuming than traditional measurement procedures, the resulting estimates of change are more robust than those from conventional methods, and also allow the influence of practice on change to be systematically investigated. (JINS, 2012, 18, 1–8)

Keywords

LongitudinalAgingNeurocognitiveReliable changeMeasurement burstGains and losses
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , July 2012 , pp. 749 - 756
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beglinger, L.J., Gaydos, B., Tangphao-Daniels, O., Duff, K., Kareken, D.A., Crawford, J., Steimers, E.R. (2005). Practice effects and the use of alternate forms in serial neuropsychological testing. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., Wesman, A.G. (1997). Differential aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Collie, A., Maruff, P., Makdissi, M., McStephen, M., Darby, D.G., McCrory, P. (2004). Statistical procedures for determining the extent of cognitive change following concussion. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 38, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ekstrom, R.B., French, J.W., Harman, H.H., Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Ferrer, E., McArdle, J.J. (2010). Longitudinal modeling of developmental changes in psychological research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 149–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrer, E., Salthouse, T.A., Stewart, W., Schwartz, B. (2004). Modeling age and retest processes in longitudinal studies of cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging, 19, 243–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M.F., Folstein, S.E., McHugh, P.R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinton-Bayre, A.D. (2010). Deriving reliable change statistics from test-retest normative data: Comparisons of models and mathematical expressions. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobson, N.S., Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCaffrey, R.J., Westervelt, H.J. (1995). Issues associated with repeated neuropsychological assessments. Neuropsychology Review, 5, 203–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McSweeny, A.J., Naugle, R.I., Chelune, G.J., Luders, H. (1993). “T scores for change”: An illustration of a regression approach to depicting change in clinical neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J. (1962). Advanced progressive matrices, set II. London: H.K. Lewis.Google Scholar
Rushton, J.P., Brainerd, C.J., Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T.A. (1993). Speed and knowledge as determinants of adult age differences in verbal tasks. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 48, P29–P36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A. (2004). Localizing age-related individual differences in a hierarchical structure. Intelligence, 32, 541–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T.A. (2005). Relations between cognitive abilities and measures of executive functioning. Neuropsychology, 19, 532–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A. (2007). Implications of within-person variability in cognitive and neuropsychological functioning on the interpretation of change. Neuropsychology, 21, 401–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A. (2010). Influence of age on practice effects in longitudinal neurocognitive change. Neuropsychology, 24, 563–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A., Babcock, R.L. (1991). Decomposing adult age differences in working memory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 763–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T.A., Ferrer-Caja, E. (2003). What needs to be explained to account for age-related effects on multiple cognitive variables? Psychology and Aging, 18, 91–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A., Fristoe, N., Rhee, S.H. (1996). How localized are age-related effects on neuropsychological measures? Neuropsychology, 10, 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salthouse, T.A., Pink, J.E., Tucker-Drob, E.M. (2008). Contextual analysis of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 36, 464–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T.A., Schroeder, D.H., Ferrer, E. (2004). Estimating retest effects in longitudinal assessments of cognitive functioning in adults between 18 and 60 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40, 813–822.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tempkin, N.R., Heaton, R.K., Grant, I., Dikmen, S.S. (1999). Detecting significant change in neuropsychological test performance: A comparison of four models. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 5, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997b). Wechsler Memory Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R.W., Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson psycho-educational battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.Google Scholar
Zachary, R.A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale—Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar