You are on page 1of 19

This article was downloaded by:

On: 24 November 2010


Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Clinical Neuropsychologist


Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713721659

The hopkins verbal learning test: Development of a new memory test with
six equivalent forms
Jason Brandta
a
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,

To cite this Article Brandt, Jason(1991) 'The hopkins verbal learning test: Development of a new memory test with six
equivalent forms', The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5: 2, 125 — 142
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13854049108403297
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13854049108403297

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf


This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Clinical Neuropsychologist 0920- 1637191/0502-0125$3.OO
1991, Vol. 5, NO. 2, pp. 125-142 0 Swets & Zeillinger

CLINICAL ISSUES

The Hopkins Verbal Learning Test:


Development of a New Memory Test with
Six Equivalent Forms
Jason Brandt
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

ABSTRACT

A new test of verbal learning and memory, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, was
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

developed. The test consists of three trials of free-recall of a 12-item, semantically


categorized list, followed by yes/no recognition. Six parallel forms yielded equivalent
results in normals. The performance of patients with Alzheimer’s disease and chronic
amnesia is described. The test is likely to be useful in patients too impaired for more
comprehensive memory assessments and where repeated testing is necessary.

Increasing sophistication in the neuropsychology of human memory has led to


the development of new clinical memory tests that eliminate many of the short-
comings of their predecessors (Erickson & Scott, 1977; Loring & Papanicolaou,
1987; Prigatano, 1978; Russell, 1981). The Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised
(Wechsler, 1987), for example, is an expanded and elaborated revision of the
original Wechsler Memory Scale (Wechsler, 1 9 4 9 , and initial studies suggest
that it is a much more clinically useful battery (Cullum, Butters, Troster, &
Salmon, 1990; Troster, Jacobs, Butters, Cullum, & Salmon, 1989; see also entire
Volume 2, Number 2 [March 19881 of this Journal).
Clinical practice and research in neuropsychology often require brief, re-
peated assessments of the same patient over time. Most of the newer clinical
memory tests are of limited utility for this purpose because of their length,

The assistance of Drs. David Edwin and David Schretlen and Mss. Christiane Cox, Laura
Krafft, Carol Miller, and Suzanne Reed is gratefully acknowledged. Supported, in part, by
NIH Grant AGO5146 to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Address correspondence to: Jason Brandt, Ph.D., Department of Psychiatry and Behav-
ioral Sciences, Meyer 218, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, 600 N. Wolfe Street, Baltimore,
MD 21205, USA.

Accepted for publication: June, 1990.


126 JASON BRANDT

complexity and/or lack of parallel forms. The WMS-R, for example, requires 45
to 60 min for administration and, at present, is available in only one form. The
California Verbal Learning Test (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 1986) is gaining
popularity as a relatively comprehensive verbal memory test, and an alternate
form has been developed (Delis et al., 1991), but its length and complexity often
make it unwieldy for use with demented or otherwise difficult-to-test patients.
Both the Randt Memory Test (Randt & Brown, 1979; Randt, Brown, & Osborne,
1980) and the Selective Reminding Test (Buschke, 1973; Buschke & Fuld, 1974)
have parallel forms available (Franzen, Tishelman, Smith, Sharp, & Friedman,
1989; Hannay & Levin, 1985; Ruff, Light, & Quayhagen, 1988), but they too are
impractical in situations where brevity is essential.
This paper introduces a new, very brief test of verbal memory, the Hopkins
Verbal Learning Test. The development of six equivalent forms of the instrument
is described, and preliminary standardization and validation data are presented.
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

METHODS

Description of the Test


Each form of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) consists of a 12-item word list,
composed of four words from each of three semantic categories (see Appendix). The
subject is instructed to listen carefully as the examiner reads the word list and attempt to
memorize the words. The word list is then read to the subject at the approximate rate of
one word every 2 s. The patient’s free recall of the list is recorded. The same procedure is
repeated for two more trials. After the third learning trial, the patient is read 24 words and
is asked to say “yes” after each word that appeared on the recall list (12 targets) and “no”
after each word that did not (12 distractors). Half of the distractors are drawn from the
same semantic categories as the targets (related distractors) and half are drawn from other
categories (unrelated distractors).

Construction of the Test


For each list, three semantic categories were chosen from among the 56 word categories
studied by Battig and Montague (1969). Four words which represent very common responses
to each category name were chosen for the list, with the exception of the two most
common responses (i.e., the best category exemplars). The two most commonly given
responses to each category name were chosen as semantically-related distractors for the
recognition test. For example, the words emerald, sapphire, opal, and pearl were chosen
for Form 1. They are drawn from the category precious stones. The two most frequent
responses to that category name, according to the Battig and Montague (1969) norms, are
diamond and ruby. Diamond and ruby do not appear on the to-be-remembered list, but
they do appear as semantically related distractors on the recognition portion of Form 1.
The six recall lists were very closely matched for mean frequency of occurrence of the
words as responses to the category names in the Battig and Montague (1969) normative
study (F5,67 = 0.05, N.S.). The construction of the lists was further constrained by the
requirement that they be composed of words with relatively low frequencies of occurrence
in printed text (mean word frequency of each list 5 50 occurrences per million; Francis &
Ku‘Cera, 1982). Mean word frequencies of the lists did not differ (F5,67= 2.01, N.S.).
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 127

RESULTS

Equivalence of the Forms


Study 1 :
For initial determination of the equivalence of the six forms, the test was ad-
ministered to 129 normal individuals who were serving as control subjects in a
number of research studies. These subjects ranged in age from 19 to 77, and all
had at least a high-school education. They were thoroughly screened by interview
for the absence of histories of neurological or psychiatric disorders, including
alcohol or drug abuse, head injury, or learning disability. None was taking any
medicalion known to affect cognition. Each subject was administered one form
of the HVLT, selected at random. Most of the subjects (102 out of 129) were also
administered the Mini-Mental State Exam (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, 1975)
as a screen for gross cognitive impairment, and all scored at least 25 out of 30.
Table 1 describes the subject sample. Analyses of variance revealed that the
groups of subjects did not differ in mean age (F,,,,, = 1.35, N.S.) or score on the
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

Mini-Mental State Exam (F5,96= 1.95, N.S.). Similarly, there was no significant
difference among the groups in sex distribution (x2 = 3.87, d.f. = 5 , N.S.) or level
of education (Kruskal-Wallis H = 9.16, d.f. = 5 , N.S.).
Table 2 shows the group means for performance on the recall and recognition
portions of the HVLT. A form-by-trial (6 x 3) repeated-measures analysis of
variance was performed on the recall performance. While the trial effect was
highly significant (F2,246= 300.00, p < .OOl), neither the form effect (F,,,,3 = 1.21,
N.S.) nor the form-by-trial interaction (F,,,,,, = 0.84, N.S.) was significant. The

Table 1 . Demographic Characteristics of 129 Normal Subjects in Study 1 . Means ( 2SD).


Form1 Form2 Form3 Form4 Form5 Form6

N 17 22 23 20 26 21

Ma1es:Females 10:7 9:13 10:13 8:12 16:lO 11:lO

Age, yrs. 43.18 41.09 43.43 46.00 37.38 36.29


(14.46) (14.28) (17.19) (17.01) (13.61) (1 3.26)

Mini-Mental 28.81 29.64 29.30 29.41 29.33 28.7 1


State Exam (1.56) (0.70) (0.86) (0.94) (0.84) (1.14)

Education 3.29 2.50 2.74 2.40 3.00 2.86


Level' (0.92) (0.96) (1.21) (1.14) (1.17) (0.96)

'Hollingshead Code: 1 = Graduate or professional degree, 2 = College graduate, 3 =


Some college, 4 = High school graduate, 5 = Some high school, 6 = Junior high school, 7
= Elementary school
128 JASON BRANDT

variances of the total recall scores (summed over trials) were homogeneous
(Cochran’s C = 0.29, N.S.). This equivalence of means and variances suggests a
virtual equivalence among the test forms.
Recognition performance was near perfect on all the forms. The number of
true-positives (“hits”) was either 11 or 12 in every case, and did not differ
significantly among the groups (F5,123= 2.13, N.S.). The incidence of false-posi-
tives was extremely low, but an analysis of variance revealed that the forms
differed on mean number of semantically related false-positives (F5,123 = 4.93, p
< .OOl). A Scheffk test revealed that Form 3, with zero related false-positives,
differed significantly from Forms 1 and 4. Semantically unrelated false positives
were virtually nonexistent, and their number did not differ among the forms
(F5,123= 0.77, N.S.). A recognition discrimination score that corrects (crudely)

Table 2. Hopkins Verbal Learning Test performance for 129 normal subjects. Means
m.
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

(+

Form1 Form2 Form3 Form4 Form5 Form6

Recall

Trial I 7.17 8.09 7.26 7.25 7.85 8.10


(2.18) (1.48) (1.29) (1.59) (2.07) (1.64)

Trial 2 9.17 9.86 9.70 9.75 9.96 9.90


(2.07) (1.75) (1.18) (1.83) (1.51) (1.55)

Trial 3 9.88 11.09 10.43 10.55 10.54 10.71


(1.90) (1.15) (1.12) (1.43) (1.55) (1.10)

TOTAL 26.24 29.05 27.39 27.55 28.35 28.71


(5.54) (3.42) (3.17) (4.41) (4.55) (3.61)

Recognition

True-Positives 113 8 11.68 11.95 11.80 12.00 113 6


(0.33) (0.65) (0.21) (0.41) (0.00) (0.35)

False-Positives
Related 0.59 0.41 0.00 0.60 0.23 0.10
(0.71) (0.73) (0.00) (0.60) (0.43) (0.30)

Unrelated 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.05


(0.00) (0.00) (0.21) (0.00) (0.00) (0.22)

DISCRlMIN- 11.29 11.27 11.91 11.20 11.77 11.71


ATION (0.92) (1.16) (0.29) (0.70) (0.43) (0.56)
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 129

the number of true-positive recognitions for guessing can be computed by [(True-


Positives + True-Negatives) - 121. This simplifies to [True-Positives - False-
Positives] (Snodgrass & Corwin, 1988). While the six forms differed in their
discrimination scores in this sample (F5,123 = 3.89, p c .005), a Scheff6 test re-
vealed that no two forms were significantly different at the 5% confidence level.
In addition, the range of discrimination scores was so narrow (1 1.20 to 11.91) as
to have little practical significance.
In this sample of 129 normal subjects, there was no relationship between age
and accuracy of recall or recognition. The Pearson product-moment correlation
between age and number of words correctly recalled over the three learning trials
was -0.05 (see Figure 1). The correlation between discrimination score and age
was +0.08, but again the restricted range of discrimination scores should be
noted.

Study 2 :
The next study used a within-subjects design in order to control for possible
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

differences between groups due to sampling error. A group of 17 normal indi-


viduals between the ages of 35 and 55 was recruited from among hospital and
university employees. These subjects were selected using the same criteria as in
Study 1. Their mean age was 44.47 years (SD = 6.47), and they averaged 14.18
years of education (range = 10-19 years; SD = 2.56). Each subject was adminis-

J 35- .........
0

. . . . .. . .
.
H .
0 .

.
J

... . . .
0 . 0 .
6
g 30--
H

..........
. ... ......
...
Hrn.

.
0 .

.
0 . 0

.
0 .
0.
0 .
0

0
0 .
.

I-
;
w
25--
.
0

.
.

. .. .. .. . .. . .
0..
. 0 .
0-

0
"
1
5
20--
H

.. . 0 .

15--
.
lo! : ; : ; I ; : : : 1 : ; ; I
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

AGE

Fig. 1. Total recall scores (summed over three trials) on the Hopkins Verbal Learning
Test as a function of age for 129 normal subjects.
130 JASON BRANDT

tered the Mini-Mental State Exam. Their scores ranged from 27 to 30 (mean =
28.82; SD = 1.07), indicating the absence of any gross cognitive impairment.
Each subject came to the laboratory on 6 days within a 2-week period. On
each day, one form of the HVLT was administered, along with several unrelated
tests also being standardized. The order in which the HVLT forms were admin-
istered was haphazardized for each subject. Subjects were paid $20 upon completion
of the six brief sessions.
An analysis of variance, with test form and trial as within-subjects repeated-
measures factors, revealed the six forms to be very similar (see Figure 2). There
was a highly significant effect for learning trial (F2,,, = 240.46, p < .001), but no
form effect (Fs,80= 1.15, N.S.) and no trial-by-form interaction (F1,,,,,= 0.82, N.S.).
The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)can be used to estimate the degree
of correspondence among several raters or, as in this case, forms of a test (Bartko
& Carpenter, 1976; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Using Shrout and Fleiss’s formula
3.1, the ICC among the forms for total recall was +0.36. This is a highly significant
correlation (F,,,8S= 4.31, p c .OOl).
Analysis of recognition scores revealed that subjects made slightly fewer
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

true-positive recognitions on Form 6 than on the others (FS,*, =2.40,< ~ .05) (see
Figure 3). Semantically related false-positives (F5,80 = 2.23, N.S.) did not differ
among the forms, and no subject made any semantically-unrelated false-posi-
tives. Discrimination scores for the six forms were equivalent (Fs,80= 1.91, N.S.).

0-0 List 1
12- v--0 List 2
A.
11 --
-0
-
5
0
10-
0
e,
I
Y
I 9--
e,
n
E 8-
3
z List 4
7 -- List 5
List 6

1 2 3
Trials
Fig. 2. Learning curves for the six forms of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test in normal
subjects. Means (+SO).
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 131

Yes/No Recognition

T 6T
Semantically Semantically
12 5/ Related Unrelated

‘i
v) ’1
.-> lo
@

v)
0
L
@ Q
2
c 2
8

7
6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Lists List List
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

Fig. 3. Performance of normal subjects on recognition portion of the Hopkins Verbal


Learning Test. Left panel shows number of true-positive recognitions (“hits”) for
each list. Right panel shows number of semantically related and semantically
unrelated false positive errors for each list. Means (+ SD).

The between-subjects variability in discrimination score was insufficiently low


for computation of a meaningful ICC.

Effects of Conditions o f Cognitive Impairment


To illustrate the sensitivity of the HVLT to conditions that affect memory, 45
patients who met NINCDS-ADRDA criteria for probable Alzheimer’s disease
(AD) (McKhann et al., 1984) and three patients with chronic global amnesia
were each administered one form of the test (randomly selected). These subjects
were compared to 18 normal subjects age 65 and older drawn from Study 1. The
characteristics of these subjects groups are shown in Table 3.
All the amnesic patients were male. One had alcoholic Korsakoff‘s syndrome.
The other two were suspected of having small, subcortical infarctions, although
the possibility of very early AD could not be ruled out.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the performance of the three groups. As would be
expected, the AD group scored below the normal elderly group in both total
recall = 12.59, p < .OOl) and discrimination (separate variance estimate f10,73
= 47.24, p<.OOl). Statistical tests of significance involving the amnesic group
were not performed because of its very small size. It is noteworthy that, while the
AD and amnesic patients made nearly the same number of correct recognitions,
the AD patients made many more false-positives. These errors were rarely seen
in the amnesics and virtually never in the normals.
132 JASON BRANDT

Table 3. Characteristics of amnesic, Alzheimer’s disease, and older normal subjects ad-
ministered the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test. Means (+ SD). The Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale - Revised and the Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised were
administered only to the amnesic patients.

Amnesic Alzheimer Normal

N 3 45 18

Age, yrs. 77.00 73.64 69.44


(2.45) (8.78) (3.70)

Education Level 3.00 2.84 2.39


(1.73) (1.22) (0.92)

Mini-Mental 27.33 18.50 29.50


State Exam (1.25) (6.45) (0.73)

WAIS-R 109.33 -_ __
Full-Scale I.Q. (16.21)
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

Wechsler Memory Scale


(Revised):

AttentionlConcentration 1 1 0.00 -_ __
Index (15.29)

General Memory Index 80.00 -_ _-


(3.74)

Delayed Memory Index 74.00 __ _-


(1 3.64)

Hollingshead Code: 1 = Graduate or professional degree, 2 = College graduate, 3 =


Some college, 4 = High school graduate, 5 = Some high school, 6 = Junior high school, 7
= Elementary school

A cutting score between 19 and 20 for total recall correctly identified 42 of


the 45 AD patients and all three amnesics as memory impaired (sensitivity =
94%) and all 18 normal control subjects as unimpaired (specificity = 100%).A
cutting score between 10 and 11 for the discrimination score had identical sensi-
tivity and specificity.

DISCUSSION

These initial studies suggest that the six forms of the Hopkins Verbal Learning
Test are nearly identical and highly intercorrelated in normal subjects. While
Study 1 found fewer semantically related false-positives on Form 3 than Forms 1
THE HOPKINS VERBAL, LEARNING TEST 133

127
11 --
lo--
- 9--
B
5 a--
2
lx
7-

;L

3
6-
5-
4-
3 --
2

2 -r
1
0, I
1 2 3
Trials

Fig. 4. Learning curves on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test for normal subjects age 65
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

and older ( n = 18). patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease ( n = 45). and pa-
tients with chronic global amnesia ( n = 3). Means (+ SD).

Yes/No Recognition

’“11Semantically
Related
T
I
Semantically
Unrelated

31 i
2

4-I:
I

0
1
o : : :
1 . i
: e ! - +
Normal Aiz Amn Norm Ak Amn Norm Ak k n n
Groups Groups Groups

Fig. 5. Performance of older normals, Alzheimer’s disease patients, and amnesic patients
on recognition portion of the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test. Left panel shows
number of true-positive recognitions (“hits”). Right panel shows number of se-
mantically related and semantically unrelated false positive errors. Means (+ SD).
134 JASON BRANDT

and 4, the incidence of these errors in normals is so low and the variability
among forms so small as to be of no practical significance. Similarly, the very
slightly lower number of correct recognitions on Form 6 seen in Study 2 is not
likely to compromise the clinical utility of the test. The intraclass correlation
among forms reached an acceptable level.
There are several advantages of the HVLT over many existing memory tests.
First, it requires no more than 10 min to administer. Second, it is well-tolerated
by even moderately to severely demented patients, while not having a ceiling
effect (in recall) in neurologically normal subjects. Third, the existence of six
comparable forms makes the HVLT particularly useful in research where patients
are assessed at frequent intervals.
The HVLT was recently employed in a study of the effects of intravenous
physostigmine in Alzheimer’s disease (Tune et al., in press). Patients received an
intravenous infusion of one of three doses of drug, or placebo, on four consecu-
tive days. Memory and other cognitive functions had to be administered rapidly,
during the 20 min of maximum drug effect. The HVLT proved an ideal test for
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

this purpose.
The lack of correlation of HVLT performance with age in the normal sample
may be due to at least two factors. First, only seven individuals in Study 1 were
age 70 or older. Recent studies have found significant verbal learning impairments
only in this older age range (Geffen, Moar, O’Hanlon, Clark, & Geffen, 1990;
Trahan, Larrabee, Quintana, Goethe, & Willinghamet, 1989). Second, the 129
normal subjects were volunteers in a number of neuropsychological and psychi-
atric research studies, not a random sample of the population. The older people
who opted to participate in these studies may have been particularly healthy and
well-functioning individuals (as is suggested by their high level of education).
While the primary data derived from the HVLT are a few, simple parameters
of verbal learning, many more qualitative features can also be examined. The
extent to which subjects appreciate the semantic structure of the list can be
assessed by computing a category clustering score, similar to that on the California
Verbal Learning Test (Delis et al., 1986). Number of perseverations and intrusion
errors, or percentage of total errors that are of these varieties, can also be computed
from the recall trials. Short- and long-delay recall and recognition trials can, of
course, be added. However, this would add significantly to administration time
and defeat the purpose of developing a simple, brief test.
Clearly, additional studies of the HVLT would be needed before it could be
recommended for widespread clinical use. More extensive age- and education-
norming is needed. It would also be important to establish the HVLT’s construct
and concurrent validity, and its sensitivity and specificity to the forms of memory
disorder seen in various diseases. Finally, determination of the test’s predictive
value in detecting memory impairment in various settings would be necessary
before it could be used for screening.
Without a doubt, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test does not provide a com-
prehensive memory assessment, nor can it substitute for a thorough clinical
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 135

examination. It certainly can not compete with the California Verbal Learning
Test, for example, for assessing the memory processes that contribute to ad-
equate or inadequate memory performance. However, there are times and situa-
tions in every neuropsychologist’s practice when the choice is between a very
brief assessment of verbal learning capacity or no assessment at all. For these
situations, or as part of a larger memory battery, the HVLT may become a
valuable instrument.

REFERENCES

Bartko, J.J., & Carpenter, W.T. (1976). On the methods and theory of reliability. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 163,307-311.
Battig, W.F., & Montague, W.E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories:
A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, Monograph, 80, 1-46.
Buschke, H. (1 973). Selective reminding for the analysis of memory and learning. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12,543-550.
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

Buschke, H., & Fuld, P.A. (1974). Evaluating storage, retention, and retrieval in disordered
memory and learning. Neurology, 24, 1019-1025.
Cullum, C.M., Butters, N., TrtSster, A.I., & Salmon, D.P. (1990). Normal aging and
forgetting rates on the Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 5.23-30.
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., & Ober, B.A. (1986). California Verbal Learning
Test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Delis, D.C., McKee, R., Massman, P., Rramer, J.H. Kaplan, E., & Gettman, D. (1991).
Alternate form of the California Verbal Learning Test: Development and reliability.
The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5 , 154-162.
Erickson, R.C., & Scott, M.L. (1977). Clinical memory testing: A review. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 1130-1149.
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.
Francis, W.N., & KuFera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and
grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Franzen, M.D., Tishelman, A,, Smith, S., Sharp, B., & Friedman, A. (1989). Preliminary
data concerning the test-retest and parallel forms reliability of the Randt Memory
Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 25-28.
Geffen, G., Moar, K.J., O’Hanlon, A.P., Clark, C.R., & Geffen, L.B. ( 1 990). Performance
measures of 16- to 86-year-old males and females on the Auditory Verbal Learning
Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 4.45-63.
Hannay, H.J., & Levin, H.S. (1985). Selective Reminding Test: An examination of the
equivalence of four forms. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ,
7, 251-263.
Lezak, M.D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.) New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Loring, D. W., & Papanicolaou, A.C. (1 987). Memory assessment in neuropsychology:
Theoretical considerations and practical utility. Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Neuropsychology, 9, 340-358.
McKhann, G., Drachman, D., Folstein, M., Katzman, R., Price, D., & Stadlan, M. (1984).
Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology, 34, 939-944.
136 JASON BRANDT

Prigatano, G.P. (1978). Wechsler Memory Scale: A selective review of the literature.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 816-832.
Randt, C.T., & Brown, E.R. (1979). The Randt Memory Test. Bayport. NY: Life Science
Associates.
Randt, C.T., Brown, E.R., & Osborne, D.P. (1980). A memory test for longitudinal
measurement of mild to moderate deficits. Clinical Neuropsychology, 2,184-194.
Ruff, R.M., Light, R.H., & Quayhagen, M. (1988). Selective Reminding Tests: A normative
study of verbal learning in adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 11.539-550.
Russell, E.W. (1981). The pathology and clinical examination of memory. In S.B. Filskov
& T.J. Boll (Eds.).Handbookof clinical neuropsychology (pp. 287-340). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Shout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlation: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86.420-428.
Snodgrass, J.G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory:
Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 117,34-50.
Trahan, D.E., Larrabee, G.L., Quintana, J.W., Goethe, K.E., & Willingham, A.C. (1989).
Developmental and clinical validation of an expanded paired associate test with
delayed recall. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3 , 169-183.
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

TrSster, A.I., Jacobs,D., Butters, N., Cullum, C.M., & Salmon, D.P. (1989). Differentiating
Alzheimer’s disease from Huntington’s disease with the Wechsler Memory Scale-
Revised. Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, 5,611-632.
Tune, L., Brandt, J., Frost, J.J., Harris, G., Mayberg, H., Steele, C., Sapp, J., Folstein,
M.F., Wagner, H., & Pearlson, G. (in press). Physostigmine in Alzheimer’s dis-
ease: Effects on cognition, cerebral glucose metabolism analyzed by PET and
cerebral blood flow analyzed by SPECT. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica.
Wechsler. D. (1945). A standardized memory scale for clinical use. Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 19, 87-95.
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. New York: Psychological Corpo-
ration.
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 137

APPENDIX

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 1: four-legged animals, precious stones, human dwellings

Part A: Free Recall

LION
EMERALD
HORSE
TENT
SAPPHIRE
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

HOTEL
CAVE
OPAL
TIGER
PEARL
cow
HUT

# Correct

Part B: Recoanition

HORSE ruby* CAVE balloon coffee LION

house* OPAL TIGER boat scarf PEARL

HUT EMERALD SAPPHIRE dog* apartment* penny

TENT mountain cat* HOTEL COW diamond*

# True Positives: -I12


# False-Positive Errors, Related: -16 Unrelated: -I6
Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =
138 JASON BRANDT

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 2: kitchen utensils, alcoholic beverages, weapons

Part A: Free Recall

FORK
RUM
PAN
PISTOL
SWORD
SPATULA
BOURBON
VODKA
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

POT
BOMB
RIFLE
WINE

# Correct

Part 8: Recosnlflon

spoon* PISTOL doll whiskey* FORK POT

harmonica can opener* SWORD pencil gun* VODKA

knife* RUM trout BOMB PAN gold

WINE lemon SPATULA BOURBON beer* RIFLE

# True Positives: -112


# False-Positive Errors, Related: -16 Unrelated: ___I6

Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =


THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNTNG TEST 139

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 3: musical instruments, fuels, food flavorings

Part A: Free Recall

SUGAR
TRUMPET
VIOLIN
COAL
GARLIC
KEROSINE
VANILLA
WOOD
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

CLARINET
FLUTE
CINNAMON
GASOLINE

# Correct

Part 6: Recoanition

pepper* GARLIC WOOD drum* oil* SUGAR

ball salt* priest chair COAL CLARINET

TRUMPET basement CINNAMON FLUTE electricity* moon

KEROSINE VANILLA GASOLINE sand piano* VIOLIN

# True Positives: -112

# False-Positive Errors, Related: -I6 Unrelated: __I6

Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =


140 JASON BRANDT

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 4: birds, articles of clothing, carpenter’s foots

Part A: Free Recall

CANARY
SHOES
EAGLE
BLOUSE
NAILS
CROW
BLUEBIRD
SCREWDRIVER
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

PANTS
CHISEL
SKIRT
WRENCH

# Correct

Part 8: Recoqnltlon

BLUEBIRD shirt* CHISEL EAGLE chocolate robin*

chapel SCREWDRIVER CROW sparrow* WRENCH PANTS

NAILS socks* child SHOES hair hammer*

CANARY apple SKIRT saw* silver BLOUSE

# True Positives: -I12


# False-Positive Errors, Related: -16 Unrelated: -I6
Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =
THE HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST 141

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 5: occupationslprofessions,sports, vegetables

Part A: Free Recall

TEACHER
BASKETBALL
LETTUCE
DENTIST
TENNIS
BEAN
ENGINEER
POTATO
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

PROFESSOR
GOLF
CORN
SOCCER

# Correct

Part B: Recosnitlon

TENNIS football* PROFESSOR spinach* lawyer* submarine

GOLF DENTIST LEl-rUCE spider water BEAN

BASKETBALL doctor* CORN baseball* TEACHER snake

carrot* ENGINEER glove SOCCER POTATO tulip

# True Positives: __ I1 2

# False-Positive Errors, Related: -16 Unrelated: -I6


Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =
142 JASON BRANDT

HOPKINS VERBAL LEARNING TEST


Form 6: fish, paKs of a building, weather phenomena

Part A: Free Recall

SHARK
WALL
HERRING
RAIN
FLOOR
HAIL
CATFISH
ROOF
Downloaded At: 14:12 24 November 2010

SALMON
STORM
CEILING
SNOW

# Correct

Part 8: Recoan/f/on

HAIL bass* SNOW bank FLOOR mustard

window* CEILING canyon RAIN ladder STORM

HERRING SALMON tornado* trout* melon ROOF

SHARK hurricane* elbow CATFISH WALL door*

# True Positives: / I 2

# False-Positive Errors, Related: / 6 Unrelated: / 6

Discrimination Index: (# True-Positives) - (# False-Positives) =