Diagnostic Efficiency and Material Specificity of the Warrington Recognition Memory Test: A Collaborative Multisite Investigation

• Published in: Archives of clinical neuropsychology 2000-05, Vol.15 (4), p.301-309
• Main Authors: Sweet, Jerry J, Demakis, George J, Ricker, Joseph H, Millis, Scott R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; material specificity; Medical sciences; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; recognition memory; Techniques and methods; Warrington
• ISSN: 0887-6177; 1873-5843
• DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6177(99)00018-9

Two studies examined the Warrington Recognition Memory Test (RMT) discrepancy index (Words-Faces) in a large sample of patients heterogeneous with respect to age, education, gender, and neurological diagnosis. In Study 1 ( N = 504) we used cutoffs from the Words-Faces discrepancy scores derived from Warrington's original validation sample to attempt to accurately classify patients with left, right, or diffuse brain damage. Sensitivity for left hemisphere patients (Faces > Words) was 10% with a specificity of 88%, whereas sensitivity for right hemisphere patients (Words > Faces) was 48% with a specificity of 86%. For patients with diffuse brain damage (Words = Faces) sensitivity was 69% and specificity was 38%. In Study 2 ( N = 263), we examined the relationship between the Words-Faces discrepancy score and Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised (WMS-R; Wechsler, 1981) Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction subtests. Contrary to predictions, patients with Words > Faces performed better on both WMS-R subtests; the Faces > Words discrepancy was not related to Visual Reproduction performance. Potential reasons for these negative findings are discussed, as well as cautions for future RMT discrepancy index use.