Dataset Information

The Pair Test: A computerised measure of learning and memory.

ABSTRACT: There is increasing interest in the assessment of learning and memory in typically developing children as well as in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, neuropsychological assessments have been hampered by the dearth of standardised tests that enable direct comparison between distinct memory processes or between types of stimulus materials. We developed a tablet-based paired-associate learning paradigm, the Pair Test, based on neurocognitive models of learning and memory. The aims are to (i) establish the utility of this novel memory tool for use with children across a wide age range, and (ii) examine test validity, reliability and reproducibility of the construct. The convergent validity of the test was found to be adequate, and higher test reliability was shown for the Pair Test compared to standardised measures. Moderate test-retest reproducibility was shown, despite a long time interval between sessions (14 months). Moreover, the Pair Test is able to capture developmental changes in memory, and can therefore chart the developmental trajectory of memory and learning functions across childhood and adolescence. Finally, we used this novel instrument to acquire normative data from 130 typically developing children, aged 8-18 years. Age-stratified normative data are provided for learning, delayed recall and delayed recognition, for measures of verbal and non-verbal memory. The Pair Test thus provides measures of learning and memory accounting for encoding, consolidation and retrieval processes. As such, the standardised test results can be used to determine the status of learning and memory in healthy children, and also to identify deficits in paediatric patients at risk of damage to the neural network underlying mnemonic functions.

SUBMITTER: Buck S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8062426 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cirrhotic patients have an impaired health-related quality of life (HRQOL), which is usually analysed using static paper-pencil questionnaires. The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerised adaptive testing (CAT) are flexible, freely available, noncopyrighted, HRQOL instruments with US-based norms across 11 domains. CAT presents five to seven questions/domain depending on the patient's response, from large validated question banks. This provides brevity and precision equivalent to the entire question bank.To evaluate PROMIS CAT tools against 'legacy instruments' for cirrhotics and their informal caregivers.A total of 200 subjects: 100 cirrhotics (70 men, 53% decompensated) and 100 caregivers were administered the PROMIS and legacy instruments [Sickness Impact Profile (SIP), Beck depression/anxiety inventories, Pittsburgh Sleep-Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness scale (ESS)] concurrently. Both legacy and PROMIS results for patients were compared with caregivers and US norms. These were also compared between compensated and decompensated patients. Preference for SIP or PROMIS was inquired of a selected group (n = 70, 50% patients). Test - retest reliability was assessed in another group of 20 patients.Patients had significant impairment on all PROMIS domains apart from anger and anxiety compared with caregivers and US norms (P < 0.02 to <0.0001). Decompensated patients had significantly worse sleep, pain, social and physical function scores compared with compensated ones, similar to legacy instruments. There was a statistically significant correlation between PROMIS and their corresponding legacy instruments. The majority (71%) preferred PROMIS over SIP. PROMIS tools had significant test - retest reliability (ICC range 0.759-0.985) when administered 12 ± 6 days apart.PROMIS computerised adaptive testing tools had significant concurrent and discriminant validity, test - retest reliability and subject preference for assessing HRQOL in cirrhotic patients.

Project description:When people try to learn new information (e.g., in a school setting), they often have multiple opportunities to study the material. One of the most important things to know is whether people adjust their study behavior on the basis of past success so as to increase their overall level of learning (for example, by emphasizing information they have not yet learned). Monitoring their learning is a key part of being able to make those kinds of adjustments. We used a recognition memory task to replicate prior research showing that memory for past test outcomes influences later monitoring, as measured by judgments of learning (JOLs; confidence that the material has been learned), but also to show that subjective confidence in whether the test answer and the amount of time taken to restudy the items also have independent effects on JOLs. We also show that there are individual differences in the effects of test accuracy and test confidence on JOLs, showing that some but not all people use past test experiences to guide monitoring of their new learning. Monitoring learning is therefore a complex process of considering multiple cues, and some people attend to those cues more effectively than others. Improving the quality of monitoring performance and learning could lead to better study behaviors and better learning. An individual's memory of past test performance (MPT) is often cited as the primary cue for judgments of learning (JOLs) following test experience during multi-trial learning tasks (Finn & Metcalfe, 2007; 2008). We used an associative recognition task to evaluate MPT-related phenomena, because performance monitoring, as measured by recognition test confidence judgments (CJs), is fallible and varies in accuracy across persons. The current study used multilevel regression models to show the simultaneous and independent influences of multiple cues on Trial 2 JOLs, in addition to performance accuracy (the typical measure of MPT in cued-recall experiments). These cues include recognition CJs, perceived recognition fluency, and Trial 2 study time allocation (an index of reprocessing fluency). Our results expand the scope of MPT-related phenomena in recognition memory testing to show independent effects of recognition test accuracy and CJs on second-trial JOLs, while also demonstrating individual differences in the effects of these cues on JOLs (as manifested in significant random effects for those regression effects in the model). The effect of study time on second-trial JOLs controlling on other variables, including Trial 1 recognition memory accuracy, also demonstrates that second-trial encoding behavior influence JOLs in addition to MPT.

Dataset Information

The Pair Test: A computerised measure of learning and memory.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets