35

The
British
Psychological
British Journal of Clinical Psychology (2007). 46, 35-45 n g U H <- • ^^
© 2007 The British Psychological Society • • " " " society
www.bpsjournals.co.uk

Age, gender and IQ effects on the Rey-Osterrieth

Complex Figure Test

Colin Gallagher* and Teresa Burke

School of Psychology, University College Dublin, Ireland

Objectives. The aims of the present study were (a) to examine the effects of age,
gender and IQ on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT), (b) to identify
the best scores to use in interpreting test performance and (c) to compare the results
with available normative data.
Design. Participants were 117 normal volunteers, 60 males and 57 females, with an
age range of 16-69 years and a mean age of 39.84 years (SD = 16.26).
Methods. Participants completed copy, 30-second immediate recall and delayed
recall trials of the ROCFT. Data consisted of raw scores from the three trials and
percent-retained scores for the memory trials.
Results. Significant effects of age, gender and IQ were found on the copy trial and on
the raw scores for the memory trials. Expressing the memory scores as a proportion of
the copy score reduced these effects, but did not eliminate them. Only a 'pure' measure
of delayed retention was found to be independent of age, gender and IQ.
Conclusion. Results are discussed in relation to the adequacy of available norms,
and the ideal scores to use for the ROCFT are identified. Caution is urged in
interpreting scores on the ROCFT due to the danger of misclassification if currently
available norms are used.

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCFT) (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941) is one
of the most widely used tests of visuospatial memory (Meyers & Meyers, 1995). It was
developed by Andre Rey to assess visual perceptual ability and visual memory in 1941.
The copy trial 'was used to assess the perceptual analytic process or strategy an
individual used to complete the copy. The recall trial drawing was scored for accuracy as
an index of visual memory' (Corwin & Bylsma, 1993, pp. 15-16).
Age effects on the ROCFT have been reported by a number of researchers, with
performance deteriorating as age increases (e.g. Boone, Lesser, Hill-Gutierrez, Berman,
& D'Elia, 1993; ChiuUi, Haaland, LaRue, & Garry, 1995). However, while some studies
that a gradual decline begins in middle adulthood (e.g. Fastenau, Denburg, &

* Correspondence should be addressed to Co/in Gallagher. School of Psychology. University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4,
Ireland (e-mail: colinjgallagher@hotmail.com).

DOI: 10.1348/014466506X106047
36 Colin Gallagher and Teresa Burke

Hufford, 1999) others indicate that scores remain relatively constant and that a sudden
sharp drop in scores only emerges in older samples (e.g. Ostrosky-Solis, Jaime, & Ardila,
1998). Consequently, it is not clear whether scores decline gradually as age increases or
whether they do so abruptly beyond a certain age.
Gender effects have also been reported in the literature, with males typically
performing better than females (e.g. Bennett-Levy, 1984). There are, however,
conflicting studies reporting negligible if any gender effects (e.g. Boone et al., 1993;
Fastenau et al., 1999). As such, the potential for gender to have a clinically meaningful
impact on test performance remains unclear.
As with many neuropsychological tests, intelligence has been found to affect
performance on the ROCFT. Bennett-Levy (1984) found that scores on the Rey Figure
were significantly related to estimated IQ in a sample aged 17-49 years, while Boone
et al. (1993) found similar relationships to IQ in a sample aged 45-83 years. Number of
years' education is often used to give an estimate of intelligence, and there is evidence to
suggest that education may affect scores on the ROCFT (e.g. Berry, Allen, & Schmitt,
1991; Fastenau etal., 1999).
The traditional method of administering the test used a copy trial and a recall trial after
a delay of 3 minutes. However, the number of studies that use this procedure is actually
relatively small. Some studies use a copy trial followed by immediate and delayed recall
trials (e.g. Fastenau etal., 1999; Meyers c& Meyers, 1995; Ostrosky-Solis etal., 1998). Other
studies use only copy and delayed recall trials (e.g. Bennett-Levy, 1984; Kuehn & Snow,
1992). These different methods of administration present difficulties for researchers, as
test scores obtained using different administration methods are not comparable. For
example, Meyers and Meyers indicate that delayed recall scores are significantly affected
by the presence or absence of an immediate recall trial, with better performance on
delayed recall if an immediate recall trial has also been included. The magnitude of these
differences would be sufficient to affect clinical judgment. Normal controls generally
score similarly at immediate and delayed recall, but participants with visual memory
problems often exhibit some deterioration in memory between the recall trials (Lezak,
1995). Consequently, it is preferable to include both immediate and delayed recall trials so
that retention of information over time can be examined.
Another problem faced by researchers is the number of different scoring procedures
available for the Rey Figure. The most commonly reported scoring procedure is that of
Taylor (1969), which is a modified version of Osterrieth's (1944) scoring procedure
(Mitrushina, Boone, & D'Elia, 1999). Other scoring systems available include Denman's
(1984) and Tombaugh and Hubley's (1991). These scoring systems emphasize different
aspects of the drawings, and also differ in the total number of points available. As a
result, the scores obtained are not comparable, and consequently, the effects of
independent variables such as age, gender and intelligence reported in studies using
these different scoring systems cannot be compared.
Furthermore, some studies use raw scores for the recall trials (e.g. ChiuUi etal., 1995;
Ostrosky Solis et al, 1998), while others convert these to percent-retained scores to
remove the effect of the copy score on subsequent memory scores (e.g. Boone et al.,
1993; Kuehn & Snow, 1992). Again, these differences make comparisons between
studies difficult.
Contrasting sample characteristics are another common finding when reviewing the
studies looking at effects of these demographic factors on the ROCFT. For example,
some studies use older samples while others use younger samples. Berry and
Carpenter's (1992) sample had a mean age of 68 years (5ZJ = 8.5) and Chiulli et al.'s
 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test 37

(1995) sample were aged between 70 and 91 years. In contrast, Delaney, Prevey, Cramer,
and Mattson's (1992) sample had an age range of 22 to 67 years (mean = 458 years)
and Meyers and Meyers's (1995) sample contained four groups whose average ages
ranged from 21.16 years to 23.83 years. Differences in the demographic characteristics
of participants in these studies makes it difficult to determine which factors are
responsible for differences in test scores.
Given this diversity of administration procedures, scoring systems and samples, it is
not surprising that studies differ in their findings relating to age, gender and intelligence
effects on the ROCFT. This proliferation of different procedures also makes it difficult to
compare results across studies. With these issues in mind, the present study was
undertaken, with three aims. First, this study sought to examine whether age, gender
and IQ affect performance on the ROCFT. Second, this study sought to determine
whether percent-retained scores are a purer reflection of true memory abilities than raw
scores. Finally, the study sought to compare the available normative data with the
findings and scores of participants in the present sample.

Method
Participants
A total of 117 normal healthy participants took part in this study. The data included in
this study were collected as part of a larger study aimed at providing a preliminary
standardization of a new test designed to assess memory for visual details (visual
recognition) and memory for locations (spatial recall) of objects presented in an array. In
order to provide a sample with appropriate demographics for a standardization study,
participants were recruited in a quasi-organized fashion, based on age, gender and level
of education. Participants were recruited such that they were stratified across six age
groups (16-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 and 60-69 years) with equal numbers of
males and females in each age group. Owing to difficulties in obtaining the desired
number of females aged 60-69 years, there was an imbalance within this age group of
10:7 in favour of males. Overall, the gender breakdown of the group was 60 males and
57 females. The breakdown of level of education of the sample (primary, secondary and
third level) roughly approximates that reported in the 2002 Irish Census of Population
(Central Statistics Office, 2002). Eight of the participants were left-handed, 108 were
right-handed and one person was ambidextrous. The age range of the sample was l6 to
69.67 years, and the average age was 39.84 years (SD = 16.26).

Materials
A copy of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (ROCF) (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941) was
used. A pencil, pencil sharpener and blank sheets of paper were provided for the
participants to draw the figure.

Procedure
As indicated above, participants were administered the tests as part of a larger study
aimed at a preliminary standardization of a new test of visual recognition and spatial
recall. This new test was based on miniaturized versions of real-w^orld items (doll's
house furniture), and did not involve drawing, geometric designs or other stimuli similar
to the Rey Figure. Participants were informed that the study as a w^hole was looking at
38 Colin Galiagher and Teresa Burke

the relationship between drawing ability, item naming ability (items of doll's house
furniture) and story recall. They were not told that the test would involve remembering
the ROCF Initially, participants were given 5 minutes to copy the ROCR after which time
both the original figure and their copy were removed from view. Thirty seconds later,
they were asked to draw the figure from memory as best they could. No time limit was
imposed on this trial. Approximately 35-40 minutes after the immediate recall trial was
completed, the participants were again asked to draw the figure from memory as best
they could. The intervening time was filled with other tasks that were not related to
drawing or geometry (e.g. 'Logical Memory' from the WMS-III, 'Vocabulary' from the
WAIS-R), and thus provided adequate distraction, without interference, to prevent
rehearsal. After testing was completed, the ROCF drawings were scored for accuracy
using Taylor's (1969) scoring criteria (see Spreen & Straus, 1991).

Results
Participant demographics
Table 1 presents the gender breakdown and the mean scores and ranges of age and IQ
estimate (as determined by the vocabulary subtest of the WAIS-R; Wechsler, 1981) across
all six age groups, and for the sample as a whole. There were no IQ differences between
males and females (F = 0.638; df = 1, 105, p > .05) or between the six age groups
(F = 0.938; df = 5, 105; p > .05).

Table I . Age, gender and IQ estimate of participants across the six age groups, and for the group as
a whole

Age (years) Gender IQ estimate

Age group Mean Range Male Female Mean Range

1 17.85 lfr-19 10 10 106.50 85-145

2 24.95 20-29 10 10 100.75 85-130
3 35.35 30-39 10 10 103.75 80-135
4 45.20 40-49 10 10 105.25 90-130
5 55.09 50-59 10 10 99.50 85-125
6 64.26 60-69 10 7 105.88 90-130
Overall 39.84 16-69 60 57 103.42 80-145

Age and gender effects

The data used in the present study consisted of raw scores for the three trials of the
ROCFT (copy, immediate recall and delayed recall), and percent-retained scores for the
memory trials. Percent-retained scores were computed for both immediate and delayed
recall as a function of the copy score, and also for delayed recall as a function of
immediate recall. These percent-retained scores are referred to as IR%C, DR%C and
DR%IR, respectively. The data were analysed using a number of two-way ANOVAs to
examine the effects of age (age group) and gender on the ROCFT. As no significant
interactions were found between age group and gender, only the main effects are
reported. The effect of intelligence (IQ estimate <95, 96-105 and > 106) on ROCFT
performance was examined separately, using a number of one-way ANOVAs, as the
 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test 39

sample was too small to examine all three variables in a single analysis. The means and
standard deviations of the various ROCFT scores, divided across age group and gender,
are presented in Tables 2 and 3, while Table 5 presents these means and standard
deviations for each IQ group.

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation of raw scores for each trial of the ROCFT across age group
and gender

Age group (years) Males Females Overall

Copy trial raw score (Copy)

16-19 31.90(2.51) 32.10(1.73) 32.00(2.10)
20-29 33.10(1.85) 32.60(1.43) 32.85(1.63)
30-39 33.50(1.58) 32.60 (2.27) 33.05(1.96)
40-49 31.60(2.37) 31.20 (5.57) 31.40(4.17)
50-59 31.40 (4.40) 25.70(4.12) 28.55 (5.08)
60-69 30.20(5.18) 29.29 (4.04) 29.82 (4.63)
16-69 31.95(3.32) 30.65(4.18) 31.32(3.80)

Immediate recall raw score (IR raw)

16-19 21.85(4.89) 19.90(4.81) 20.88 (4.83)
20-29 25.45 (4.62) 21.50(4.73) 23.48 (5.00)
30-39 24.35 (3.43) 20.75 (5.71) 22.55 (4.94)
40-49 22.90 (3.59) 18.90(3.53) 20.90 (4.03)
50-59 19.60(7.08) 12.45(5.33) 16.03(7.13)
60-69 19.30(8.37) 11.36(5.06) 16.03 (8.08)
16-69 22.24 (5.86) 17.80(6.10) 20.08 (6.35)

Delayed recall raw score (DR raw)

16-19 22.40(5.15) 20.40 (4.77) 21.40(4.94)
20-29 24.90 (4.62) 20.00 (4.08) 22.45 (4.93)
30-39 24.00 (3.37) 20.35 (5.50) 22.18(4.82)
40-49 22.30 (3.48) 18.85(3.87) 20.58 (4.00)
50-59 17.50(5.86) 12.80 (5.09) 15.15(5.86)
60-69 18.75(8.80) 11.43(5.14) 15.74(8.20)
16-69 21.64(5.93) 17.61 (5.79) 19.68(6.18)

The first analysis examined the effects of age and gender on the copy trial (Copy
score) of the ROCFT. Significant effects of age group (F = 5.440; df - 5, 105;/? < .001)
and gender (F = 4.756; df = \, 105; p < .05) were found on these scores. The age
group effect was found to result from age group 5 (50-59 years) having significantly
lower copy scores than either age group 2 (20-29 years) (J) < .01) or age group 3 (30-
39 years) (/? < .01), while the gender difference was due to males producing more
accurate copies than females.
The second set of scores to be examined for age and gender effects were the ra'w
scores for the immediate recall trial (IR raw). Significant effects of age group (P = 7.708;
df =5, 105;/> < .001) and gender CF = 23.507; df = I, 105;p < 001) were found on
these scores. The effect of age group was found to be due to age groups 5 (50-59 years)
and 6 (60-69 years) obtaining lower scores than age groups 2 (20-29 years) (p < .005
for both) and 3 (30-39 years) Cp < .05 for both). The gender difference was due to
males recalling more of the figure than females.
40 Colin Gallagher and Teresa Burke

Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of percent-retained scores on the ROCFT across age group
and gender

Age group (years) Males Females Overall

Immediate recall as a proportion of Copy score (IR%C)

16-19 68,11 (13.08) 62.23 (15.99) 65.17 (14,54)
20-29 76.63 (11.78) 65,93 (13.96) 71.28 (13.72)
30-39 72.63(9.05) 63.71(16.24) 68.17(13.59)
40-49 72.80(12.34) 61.85(11.83) 67.32(13,04)
50-59 60.99(17.13) 49,52(25.84) 55,25(22,13)
60-69 61.87(21.92) 38.51(14,89) 52,26(22.22)
16-69 68.84(15.34) 57,93(18,75) 63,52(17.87)

Delayed recall as a proportion of Copy score (DR%C)

16-19 69,68(13,85) 63.85(15.92) 66.76(14.83)
20-29 74.88 (10,82) 61,21 (11.39) 68.05 (12.88)
30-39 71.63(9,23) 62.51(15.82) 67.07(13.45)
40-49 70.95 (12.76) 61.46 (11.57) 66.21 (12.81)
50-59 54.67(13.73) 50.43(23.15) 52.55(18.65)
60-69 59.55(24.22) 38,28(14.93) 50.79(23,02)
16-69 66.89(16.01) 57,24(17,47) 62,19(17,36)

Delayed recall as a proportion of Immediate recall raw score (DR%IR)

16-19 102.97(17.27) 103,51(12.23) 103.24(14.57)
20-29 98.21(7,33) 94,33(13.59) 96.27(10.81)
30-39 98.80 (7,40) 98,26 (9,92) 98.53 (8.52)
40-^9 97.58(7.63) 99.58(7.03) 98.58(7.22)
50-59 91,24(13,29) 103.22(18.77) 97.23(16,98)
60-69 93,67 (14,10) 102,80 (26.48) 97.43 (19,91)
16-69 97.08 (11.94) 100,15 (14.85) 98,58 (13.47)

The next set of data to be examined were the raw scores for delayed recall (DR raw).
As was the case with immediate recall, the main effects of age group (F = 8,319;
df = 5, lO5;p < ,001) and gender (F = 20.413; df = 1, lO5,p < ,001) were found to
be significant. Age group 5 (50-59 years) recalled less of the figure than age groups 1
(16-19 years) (p < .05), 2 (20-29 years) (J) < .005) and 3 (30-39 years) (ip < ,005),
while age group 6 recalled less of thefigurethan age groups 2 (^ < .05) and 5ip < ,05).
Once again, males recalled more of the figure than did females.
The immediate recall scores were then expressed as a proportion of the copy score
(IR%C), and these data were then analysed for age and gender effects. The effects of age
group (F = 4.894; df = 5, 105; p < ,001) and gender (/=•= 15,969; df=l, 105;
p < ,001) were still found to be significant, although the magnitude of these effects was
reduced. The significant age effect here was due to age group 6 (60-69 years) retaining
less of the figure than age group 2 (20-29 years) (J? < .05), No other age group
differences were significant. The gender effect was due to males recalling a greater
proportion of the figure than females.
When the delayed recall scores were expressed as a proportion of the copy score
(DR%C), and the data reanalysed, a similar pattern of results emerged as with the
immediate recall trial. The magnitude of the effects was reduced but the age group
(F = 5,579; df = 5, 105; p < ,001) and gender (F = 13640; df = 1, 105; p < ,001)
effects were still significant. The age effect was due solely to the lower retention of
 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test AI

information in age group 6 compared with age group 2 (j) < ,05), while the gender
difference was again due to males recalling a greater proportion of the figure than
females.
Finally, the delayed recall scores were expressed as a proportion of the immediate
recall scores (DR%IR) in order to provide a measure of retention across time. When
these data were analysed, the effects of age group (f = 0,630; df = 5, 105; p > 0,05)
and gender (F = 1,617; df = I, 105;p > 0,05) were found to be non-significant.

IQ effects
In order to examine the effect of IQ on the ROCFT, the sample was split into three
groups (IQ of 95 or less; IQ between 96 and 105; IQ of 106 or greater) on the basis of the
IQ-estimate scores such that there w^ere approximately equal numbers in each group
(see Table 4 for demographic details of these three groups). When these three groups
were compared on age, no significant difference w^as found (P = 0.952; df = 2, 114;
p > .05). A chi-squared test examining the distribution of males and females within each
group revealed that the proportion of males and females in each group did not differ
significantly (x^ = 2.410; df = 2;p > .05). The scores of the three IQ groups on each of
the ROCFT measures were then compared. The means and standard deviations of these
scores are presented in Table 5.

Table 4. Age and gender of participants in each of the three IQ-estimate groups

Age Gender

IQ group N Mean SD Males Females

<95 42 42.61 15,12 18 24

96-105 40 38.30 17,28 24 16
> 106 35 38.28 16,41 18 17
Overall 117 39.84 16.26 60 57

Table 5. Mean and standard deviation of the various ROCFT scores across the three IQ-estimate
groups

IQ-estimate scores

ROCFT score <95 96-105 >IO6 Overall

Copy 30.00 (4.26) 31,80(3,96) 32.34 (2.45) 31.32(3,80)

IR raw 17.36(6,33) 21,20(6.33) 22.06 (5.36) 20.08 (6,36)
DR raw 16.95(6,18) 20,64 (6.35) 21.86(4,77) 19.68(6.18)
IR%C 57.19(19.05) 66,13(17.11) 68.14(15.39) 63.52(17,87)
DR%C 55.72(18.20) 64,29(17.54) 67.55 (13.74) 62.19(17.36)
DR%IR 98.39(15,23) 97.12(12.23) 100.46(12,70) 98,58(13.47)

Significant effects of IQ were found on the Copy score (F = 4,351; df = 2, 114;

p < ,05), the immediate recall raw GR raw) score (F = 6.791; df = 2, 114; p < ,005),
and the delayed recall raw (DR raw) score (F = 7,503; df = 2, 114; p < .005), In all
three cases, those with an IQ of 106 or above obtained higher scores than those with an
42 Colin Gallagher and Teresa &urke

IQ of 95 or less. In addition, those with an IQ between 96 and 105 obtained lower scores
on the recall trials (IR raw and DR raw) than those with an IQ of 106 or greater. When
the recall scores were expressed as a proportion of the copy score, the magnitude of
these effects was reduced, but they were not eliminated (IR%C: F = 4.481; df = 2, 114;
p < .05; DR%C: F = 5.239; df = 2, 114;/? < .01). In these instances, those with IQs of
106 or greater obtained better scores than those with IQs of 95 or less, but they did not
differ from those with IQs between 96 and 105. There was no significant effect of IQ on
the delayed recall score when it was expressed as a proportion of the immediate recall
score (DR%IR) (F = 0.573; df = 2,\\4,p> .05).

Discussion
The primary aim of the present study was to examine the effects of age, gender and IQ
on performance on the ROCFT. The results indicate that the copy, 30-second immediate
recall and delayed recall trials of the ROCFT are all affected significantly by age, gender
and IQ when raw scores are used. The significant age effects were the result of older
participants making less accurate copies and recalling less of the figure than their
younger counterparts. Males obtained better copy and recall scores than females, while
higher scores were seen in the group with higher IQs. When scores for the two recall
trials were expressed as a proportion of the copy score, in order to remove any
confounding effects on recall that may be attributable to the amount of the figure
copied, the main effects of age, gender and IQ were still present, albeit to a lesser
degree. Using these scores, similar sources of difference were found, with older
participants recalling less of the figure than younger participants, males recalling more
of the figure than females, and those with lower IQs recalling less of the figure than
those with higher IQs. Only when the delayed recall scores were expressed as a
proportion of immediate recall, as an index of retention of information across time, was
it found that age, gender and IQ effects were eliminated.
The finding that age affects performance on the three raw scores of the ROCFT is in
line with previous research (e.g. Boone etal, 1993; Chiulli etal, 1995; Fastenau etal,
1999; Ostrosky-Solis et al, 1998). The findings from the present study suggest that the
decline in performance begins around the late forties/earlyfifties.The finding that males
and females differ significantly from each other concurs with the findings of Bennett-
Levy (1984) but conflicts with Fastenau et al., who reported negligible gender effects.
Interestingly, Fastenau et al. found a significant gender effect on the copy trial, but
concluded that it was of no practical significance as it accounted for less than 2% of the
variation in scores in a multiple regression analysis. Some of the gender differences
found in the present study exceeded four points, clearly not insignificant from the point
of view of clinical diagnosis. Finally, the differences found betw^een those w^ith IQs of 95
or less and those with IQs of 106 or greater extend the findings of Bennett-Levy (1984)
and Boone et al (1993), and illustrate that intelligence also plays a significant role in
ROCFT performance.
The results of this study demonstrate that if raw scores on the ROCFT are to be used
in neuropsychological assessments, then the norms against which these scores are
compared need to take age, gender and intelligence into account. At present, none of
the available normative data take all three factors into consideration. In fact, the most
commonly cited set of norms for the ROCFT, those of Osterrieth (1944), fails to take
even one of these factors into account.
 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test 43

One of the most comprehensive normative data studies using the ROCFT was carried
out by Fastenau et al. (1999). While they found significant effects of age, gender and
education on the copy trial of the ROCFT, and significant effects of age and education on
the memory trials, their normative data tables only take age into account. They
discounted gender and education (which is used to give an estimate of Intelligence) in
formulating the tables as they concluded that these factors did not account for a
sufficiently large proportion of the variance in scores. The findings from the present
study indicate that clinical judgments could be affected by these variables and would
argue that they are of practical significance, and so should be taken into account in any
normative data tables. Consequently, there is a danger that patients who are undergoing
memory assessments may obtain mis-diagnoses or be misclassified if the ROCFT is used
in its current format. A revised set of normative data, w^hich takes age, gender and
intelligence into account, is needed if the test is to be used reliably as a clinical tool.
However, having said this, raw scores used in isolation may not be the best measures of
performance on the ROCFT.
The results of the present study demonstrate that while the three demographic
factors of age, gender and intelligence affect scores on the copy trial of the ROCFT, their
impact on the immediate and delayed recall trials of the test depends on the way recall is
measured. This leads to the question of what the ideal scores are for interpreting ROCFT
performance. Considering the constructional, perceptual and attentional components
involved in copying the figure, and the potential for this to influence the recall trials,
percent-retained scores for the memory trials of the ROCFT appear to be preferable to
raw scores. This is because percent-retained scores represent a purer measure of
memory, due to the fact that they are independent of the copy score. Of course, it is
important to bear in mind the raw scores a person obtains on the memory trials, but
clinical judgments should not be based on these scores alone. If each trial of the ROCFT
(copy, immediate recall and delayed recall) is to measure a somewhat distinct ability, and
not be confounded by scores on preceding trials, then the ideal ROCFT scores are Copy,
IR%C (immediate recall as a proportion of the Copy score), and DR%IR (delayed recall as
a proportion of the immediate recall score). By using these three scores, not only can
defective performance be detected, but the nature of the deficit can also be elucidated.
The Copy score represents an index of the person's ability to perceive the figure
correctly and to draw it accurately, but it cannot be interpreted in isolation. This score
must be interpreted in conjunction with other tests that examine visuoperceptual and
visuoconstructional ability, as these abilities can impact upon the Copy score. The IR%C
score represents a measure of short-term memory and encoding efficiency. This score
can help in the identification of memory impairments that result from encoding
difficulties or problems in consolidating the information in memory, and also deficits in
copying the figure that are not due to visuoperceptual and visuoconstructional
difficulties. Finally, the DR%IR score represents an index of retention of information
across time. Consequently, this score can be used to identify memory problems that are
due to storage deficits. Use of these three scores can therefore be used together to
determine whether impaired performance on any of the ROCFT trials is due to
visuoconstructional/visuoperceptual deficits, short-term/encoding deficits, long-term/
storage deficits, slow^ed processing, or some combination of these. For ease of
comparison with the other two scores, the Copy score can be expressed as a proportion
of the totalfigure(C%T).
As was pointed out previously, there are no normative data available for the ROCFT
that take age, gender and intelligence into account. Additionally, there are no normative
44 Colin Gallagher and Teresa Burke

data that include all three of the scores identified here as being the ideal ROCFT scores.
The sample tested in the present study is too small to allow a new set of norms,
accounting for age, gender and intelligence, and utilizing the suggested scores, to be
computed. Clearly, further research is needed that will develop this new set of norms.
Even with these ideal scores and revised norms, however, interpretation of performance
on the ROCFT must be tempered with caution, as other factors, such as the potential for
verbal mediation, still remain that could affect performance on the test.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a UCD Research Doctoral Scholarship Award to the first author.

References
Bennett-Levy, J. (1984). Determinants of perfomiance on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure test:
An analysis, and a new technique for single^ase assessment. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 23, \O9-n9.
Berry, D. T R., Allen, R. S., & Schmitt, F. A. (1991). Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Psychometric
characteristics in a geriatric sample. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5, 143-153.
Berry, D. T. R., & Carpenter, G. C. (1992). Effect of four different delay periods on recall of the Rey-
Osterrieth Complex Figure by older persons. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 80-84.
Boone, K. B., Lesser, L M., Hill-Gutierrez, E. H., Berman, N. G., & D Elia, L. F (1993). Rey-Osterrieth
complex figure performance in healthy older adults: Relationship to age, education, sex, and
IQ. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 22-28.
Central Statistics Office. (2002). Census of population 2002, Volume 7 - Education and
qualifications. Dublin, Ireland; Author.
ChiuUi, S. J., Haaland, K. Y, LaRue, A., & Garry, P. J. (1995). Impact of age on drawing the Rey-
Osterrieth Figure. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 219-224.
Corwin, J., & Bylsma, F W. (1993). Translations of excerpts from Andre Rey's Psychological
Examination of Traumatic Encephalopathy and P. A. Osterrieth's The Complex Figure Copy
Test. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 3-21.
Delaney, R. C, Prevey M. L., Cramer, J., & Mattson, R. H. (1992). Test-retest comparability and
control subject data for the Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning Test and Rey-Osterrieth/Taylor
Complex Vigures. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 523-528.
Denman, S. B. (1984). Manualfor the Denman neuropsychology memory scale. Charleston, SC:
Author
Fastenau, P S., Denburg, N. L, & Hufford, B. J. (1999). Adult norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex
Figure Test and for supplemental recognition and matching trials from the Extended Complex
Figure Test. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13, 30-47.
Kuehn, S. M., & Snow, W. G. (1992). Are the Rey and Taylorfiguresequivalent? Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 7, 445-448.
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Meyers, J. E., & Meyers, K. R. (1995). Rey complex figure test under four different administration
procedures. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 9, 65-61.
Mitrushina, M. N., Boone, K. B., & D'Elia, L. F (1999). Handbook of normative data for
neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test de copie d'une figure complexe. Contribution a l'etude de la
perception et de la memoire. Archives de Psychologie, 30, 206-353.
Ostrosky-Solis, F, Jaime, R. M., & Ardila, A. (1998). Memory abilities during normal aging.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 93, 151-162.
 Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test 45

Rey, A. (1941). L'examen psychologique dans les cas d'encephalopathie traumatique. Archives de
Psychologie, 28, 286-340.
Spreen, C, & Strauss, E. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration,
norms, and commentary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, L. B. (1969). Localization of cerebral lesions by psychological testing. Clinicai
Neurosurgery, 16, 269-287.
Tombaugh, T N., & Hubley, A. M. (1991). Four studies comparing the Rey-Osterrieth and Taylor
complex figures, foumal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychoiogy, 13, 587-599.
Wechsler, D. (1981). WAIS-R manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.
Received 10 November 2003; revised version received 20 February 2006