Transcript Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT) SPAT Structure  Similar to WMS “paired associates” subtest  14 sign pairs – 7 easy & 7

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
6 delayed recall
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
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
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
SPAT Norms
Immediate Recall
Delayed Free Recall
Delayed Free + Cued
Recall
Easy
Total
Hard
Total
Sum
Total
Easy
Total
Hard
Total
Sum
Total
Easy
Total
Hard
Total
Sum
Total
28
28
56
7
7
14
7
7
14
26.5
(2.4)
18.4
(5.7)
44.9
(7.4)
4.6
(1.2)
4.6
(1.7)
9.2
(2.5)
6.9
(0.4)
5.8
(1.7)
12.7
(1.9)
25.7
(4.0)
18.0
(6.2)
43.7
(9.4)
4.5
(1.2)
4.4
(1.9)
8.9
(2.8)
6.8
(0.9)
5.7
(2.1)
12.5
(2.8)
Maximum Possible
Current study
DeMatteo, et al.
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
**
Tr
ia
l1
**
T
*T
r ia otal
(1
** l 2
To 4)
*T
tal
r ia
l
(1
**
3
To 4)
*T
** r ial tal (
Im
1
4
To 4)
m
.
tal
**
*I Eas
(1
y
m
To 4)
m
t
** . H
ar al (2
**
*I
d
m
De
To 8)
m
la
.S
ta
um l ( 2
** yed
De
Fr
To 8)
ee
la
tal
Ea
** yed
(5
sy
Fr
6)
*D Del
T
ee
o
a
ela
ye
tal
Ha
d
y
(7
rd
ed
Fr
**
)
e
T
De
Fr
e
o
Su
tal
ee
la
+
y
m
(7
**
e
Cu
T
)
De d F
ed
ot
r
al
ee
la
ye
+C Eas
(1
4)
y
d
u
To
Fr
ed
ee
t
+C Har al (
7
d
ue
To )
d
ta
Su
l(
m
To 7)
ta
l(
14
)
Mean Pairs Recalled
Healthy v. Clinical Performance
49
42
35
28
Healthy
21
Clinical
14
7
0
SPAT-PIQ Correlations
SPAT Score
r value
p value
Immediate Recall Easy Total
.30
.011
Immediate Recall Hard Total
.47
<.001
Immediate Recall Sum Total
.45
<.001
Delayed Free Recall Easy Total
.48
<.001
Delayed Free Recall Hard Total
.46
<.001
Delayed Free Recall Sum Total
.50
<.001
Delayed Free + Cued Recall Easy Total
.27
.021
Delayed Free + Cued Recall Hard Total
.49
<.001
Delayed Free + Cued Recall Sum Total
.46
<.001
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
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
“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
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
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)