The Clinical Neuropsychologist

ISSN: 1385-4046 (Print) 1744-4144 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ntcn20

Adult Norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex

Figure Test and for Supplemental Recognition and
Matching Trials from the Extended Complex Figure
Test

Philip S. Fastenau , Natalie L. Denburg & Bradley J. Hufford

To cite this article: Philip S. Fastenau , Natalie L. Denburg & Bradley J. Hufford (1999) Adult
Norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and for Supplemental Recognition and
Matching Trials from the Extended Complex Figure Test, The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13:1,
30-47, DOI: 10.1076/clin.13.1.30.1976

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1076/clin.13.1.30.1976

Published online: 09 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4326

View related articles

Citing articles: 24 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ntcn20
The Clinical Neuropsychologist 1385-4046/99/1301-030$15.00
1999, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 30-47 © Swets & Zeitlinger

Adult Norms for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test and

for Supplemental Recognition and Matching Trials from the
Extended Complex Figure Test*
Philip S. Fastenau1, Natalie L. Denburg2,3, and Bradley J. Hufford1
1Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, IN, 2Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, and 3Department of Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, CA

ABSTRACT

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (‘‘the Rey’’; Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941) has accumulated a
considerable literature as a test of visual-spatial perception/construction and memory. The Extended Com-
plex Figure Test (ECFT; Fastenau, 1996a, in press-a; Fastenau & Manning, 1992) supplements the Rey
with Recognition and Matching trials that follow Copy, Immediate Recall, and Delayed Recall. The Rey
and ECFT were administered to 211 healthy adults. Age ranged from 30 years to 85 years (M = 62.9, SD
= 14.2), education ranged from 12 years to 25 years (M = 14.9, SD = 2.6), 55% were women, and over 95%
were Caucasian. Age and education effects were evident on all trials (Multiple R ranged .23 to .50, p < .05),
but education explained minimal variance (usually 2-3%) on copy and memory trials. Gender effects were
negligible, if present. Age-appropriate norms are presented using Osterrieth’s 36-point scoring, overlap-
ping cells, and convenient tables for converting raw scores to scaled scores.

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (‘‘the
Rey’’; Rey, 1941; Osterrieth, 1944; Rey & Os-
terrieth, 1993) was designed to measure both
perceptual organization and visual memory in
brain-injured persons. It has become a standard
component in many neuropsychological batter-
ies (e.g., Kaplan, 1988; Lezak, 1983, 1995; Or-
sini, Van Gorp, & Boone, 1988; Squire, 1986;
Weintraub & Mesulam, 1985).
In the most popular administration of this test
(Knight, Kaplan, & Ireland, 1994; Lezak, 1995),
a person is asked to copy a complex geometric
stimulus on a blank sheet of paper, often using
five or six colored pens which are presented one
at a time by the examiner. The examiner can
track the person’s constructional approach by
recording the sequence of lines as they are
drawn or by recording the sequence of colors;
perceptual organization is inferred from the con-
structive procedure employed by the individual
during the copy production. The examiner may
also note the time that lapses between start and
finish. Immediately following the copy trial, the
stimulus and copy are removed. The examiner
provides a new blank sheet and asks the person
to reproduce the image from memory (immedi-
ate recall). After a delay of 15 to 60 min, the
memory trial is repeated to measure delayed
recall; within this time span, the length of the
delay appears to be inconsequential to recall
(Berry, Allen, & Schmitt, 1991).
The Rey uses an intricate stimulus that is
asymmetrical in its design. The complexity of
this stimulus seems to tax the upper range of
visual-spatial processing better than other geo-
metric stimuli. As a product of this complexity,

*
This manuscript is an elaboration of a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Neuropsycho-
logical Society in Orlando, FL in February, 1997.
Address correspondence to: Philip S. Fastenau, Department of Psychology (LD 124), 402 N. Blackford Street,
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, IN 46202-3275, USA. E-mail:
pfastena@iupui.edu.
Accepted for publication: July 21, 1998.
 NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT
the Rey appears to be more resistant to verbal
mediation, even compared to other ‘‘complex’’
figures such as the Taylor figure (Casey, Win-
ner, Hurwitz, & DaSilva, 1991).
The Rey has proven useful in the study of
normal child development (e.g., Karapetsas &
Kantas, 1991; Waber & Holmes, 1985, 1986).
Atypical child development, also, has been in-
vestigated using the Rey (e.g., Brandys & Rour-
ke, 1991; Klicpera, 1983; Prior & Hoffmann,
1990).
The Rey is useful with adults, as well. It has
proven to be sensitive to a wide range of
nervous system insults, including solvent expo-
sure (Milanovic, Spilich, Vucinic, & Knezevic,
1990), hippocampal sclerosis (Miller, Muñoz, &
Finmore, 1993), Wernicke’s encephalopathy
(Parkin, Dunn, Lee, O’Hara, & Nussbaum,
1993), asymptomatic HIV-seropositive status
(McManis, Brown, Zachary, & Rundell, 1993),
AIDS (Hamby, Wilkins, & Barry, 1993), Alz-
heimer’s-type dementia (Berry et al., 1991;
Brouwers, Cox, Martin, Chase, & Fedio, 1984),
mild head injury (Leininger, Gramling, Farrell,
Kreutzer, & Peck, 1990), lateralized strokes
(Binder, 1982), and lateralized seizure foci
(Fastenau & Fisk, 1997a, 1997b; Jones-Gotman,
1986; Loring, Lee, & Meador, 1988; Taylor,
1969).
Although the Rey has proven to be a very
useful tool, it lacks recognition and matching
trials, which can help clarify contributions of
perception and memory retrieval to defective
memory recall performances. Fastenau (Fas-
tenau, 1996a, in press-a; Fastenau & Manning,
1992) expanded the administration of the Rey by
adding recognition and matching trials to the
existing copy, immediate recall, and delayed
recall trials of the Rey. This elaborated adminis-
tration is collectively called the ‘‘Extended
Complex Figure Test’’ (ECFT).
Fastenau (in press-b) described how a five-
trial administration could be used for diagnostics
and rehabilitation planning. In the interpretive
process, the first step would be to examine
Matching to verify accurate perception of the
stimulus. If perception were intact, the Copy
trial could then be examined to assess the level
of construction ability. Immediate Recall could
31
be compared to Delayed Recall to determine
how much of the memory trace is retained over
time (i.e., forgetting rates). Finally, free recall
(both Immediate Recall and Delayed Recall)
could be compared to Recognition performance;
if the latter were significantly better than the
former, then inefficient retrieval processes
would be implicated. That is, the memory trace
would have been encoded and stored, but the
person would need memory aids in order to ac-
cess the memory trace.
ECFT Recognition was first designed by
Fastenau and Manning (1992) using clinical re-
cords, developmental literature, and theoretical
literature. The original version was subjected to
pilot study and expert appraisal, after which it
was revised into its final version which included
a matching trial (Fastenau, 1996a, in press-a).
Reliability and validity for the new instrument
have been examined and reported in detail else-
where (Fastenau, 1996a, in press-a, in press-b;
Fastenau & Denburg, 1994; Fastenau & Fisk,
1997a, 1997b; Fastenau & Manning, 1992). In
addition to showing strong reliability and valid-
ity, the Rey and ECFT have been shown to be
robust with respect to several variations in ad-
ministration (Berry et al., 1991; Fastenau, Ben-
nett, & Fisk, 1996; Fastenau & Denburg, 1997;
Fastenau, Denburg, & Domitrovic, 1997) and
with respect to different scoring systems for the
Rey figure drawings (Fastenau, Bennett, & Den-
burg, 1996).
The ECFT has been used with several clinical
populations. Recognition and matching scores
discriminate between patients with Alzheimer’s
and matched controls (Fastenau, Unverzagt,
Koop, & Hufford, 1998). In addition, ECFT
Recognition effectively discriminates patients
with right focal temporal lobe epilepsy from
those with left epileptic foci (Fastenau & Fisk,
1997b). The ECFT has discriminated also be-
tween patients with severe depression and
matched controls (Fastenau, Smet, et al., 1998).
Data collection is in progress with people who
have sustained lateralized strokes, particularly
for determining the sensitivity and specificity of
the Left- and Right-Detail Subscales of the
ECFT (D. Johnson-Greene, personal communi-
cation, July 15, 1997). Data collection has also
32 PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.
begun with people who have schizophrenia
(Smet, 1997), in whom retrieval has been shown
to be more affected than encoding (McClain,
1983; Paulsen et al., 1995).
Adult norms are available for the Rey (e.g.,
Berry et al., 1991; Boone, Lesser, Hill-Gutier-
rez, Berman, & D’Elia, 1993; Roselli & Ardila,
1991), but none of these include recognition or
matching trials. Optimally, clinicians would
want to compare all trial performances on the
same norms to make direct and equitable com-
parisons among trials.
Meyers and Meyers (1995) introduced a rec-
ognition trial for the Rey shortly after develop-
ment began on the ECFT; they co-normed the
Rey with their recognition trial. Although theirs
appears to be a very useful recognition task, sev-
eral differences between that test and the ECFT
limit the applicability of those norms for inter-
pretation of the ECFT. First, the Meyers’ task
does not provide a matching trial. Second, the
Meyers’ recognition trial uses a different format
from the ECFT for assessing recognition. The
patient is shown 12 pieces of the Rey figure all
at once, together with an equal number of foils;
the patient is instructed to circle the units that
were part of the stimulus. Because the patient is
allowed to examine all of the items at once,
some pieces can be used to cue the recall of
other units. Finally, the ‘‘immediate’’ recall trial
is administered after a 3-min delay followed by
yet another recall trial 30 min later. This admin-
istration is not typical of the common practices
of neuropsychologists using the Rey (Knight et
al., 1994).
Preliminary norms for the ECFT were pro-
vided by Fastenau (1996a), but those, too, are
limited for several reasons. First, only 88 people
comprised the initial sample. Second, that sam-
ple retained individuals who were living inde-
pendently in the community, even if they had
sustained significant neurological insults; that
inclusion criterion may be sufficient for treat-
ment planning purposes (i.e., discriminating be-
tween people who can vs. cannot care for them-
selves), but is not optimal for diagnostic pur-
poses. As a final limitation to Fastenau’s
(1996a) preliminary norms, the data were pub-
lished using a scoring system that was more
cumbersome than the equally reliable, equally
valid, and more widely used Osterrieth scoring
system (Fastenau et al., 1996; Knight et al.,
1994; Osterrieth, 1944; Rey & Osterrieth, 1993).
In the present study, data from a much larger,
healthier sample were scored using the popular
and efficient Osterrieth scoring system. Norms
are derived and tabulated in convenient conver-
sion tables.
METHOD
Participants
The participants for this study were recruited at
three different sites, as part of other studies. For all
three sites, a stratified sampling procedure re-
cruited community-dwelling adults with approxi-
mately equal numbers of men and women in every
age band. Participants were financially compen-
sated for their participation. Volunteers with un-
corrected visual or hearing impairment or with
impaired use of the preferred hand were not in-
cluded. Based on a structured interview, volunteers
were excluded for history of cerebrovascular insult
(stroke or TIA), head injury with loss of con-
sciousness exceeding 5-min duration, and chronic
substance abuse. Volunteers were excluded also
because of incomplete protocols.
An educational cutoff was also implemented.
Even though a concerted effort was made to recruit
people with lower education, there were very few
people (2%) who had fewer than 12 years of edu-
cation after all three samples were assembled. Peo-
ple with fewer than 12 years of education score
significantly lower than those with 12 or more
years of education on a variety of neuropsycholog-
ical tests (e.g., Bornstein & Suga, 1988; Hawkins
et al., 1993; Ross & Lichtenberg, 1997). Fastenau
and colleagues (Fastenau, in press-c; Fastenau,
Denburg, & Mauer, in press) have argued that this
can have dramatic effects on norms. Because the
least-educated population would be severely
underrepresented in the present sample, it would
be misleading to include these participants and to
suggest that these norms would serve that popula-
tion equally well. Therefore, individuals with less
than 12 years education were excluded.
The first sample was selected from a larger
sample of 90 community-dwelling adults, who
were recruited from four religious organizations in
a city in the Midwestern U.S. The larger sample
was used in other published papers (Fastenau,
1996a, 1996b; Fastenau & Denburg, 1994; Faste-
 NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT
nau, Denburg, & Abeles, 1996a, 1996b; Fastenau,
Denburg, & Domitrovic, 1997), and part of the
larger sample was used by Fastenau, Bennett, and
Denburg (1996). Of that sample, 81 met inclusion
criteria for the present study. Age for the selected
portion of that sample ranged from 30 years to 79
years (M = 53.1, SD = 13.6), education ranged
from 12 years to 25 years (M = 15.6, SD = 2.8),
and 59% were women. WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981)
Vocabulary subtest scores were obtained on this
subsample as an index of intellectual functioning.
Age-corrected scaled scores ranged from 7 to 19;
the mean was 12.7 (SD = 2.3), which is roughly
equivalent to High Average IQ (approximately 110
– 115 estimated IQ).
In another Midwestern sample, 100 participants
were recruited through two local churches and an
older adult organization. Of those, 84 were re-
tained for the present sample. The ECFT data from
this sample have not appeared in any other pub-
lished paper. Age for the selected portion of that
sample ranged from 60 years to 85 years (M =
72.9, SD = 6.8), education ranged from 12 years to
20 years (M = 13.9, SD = 2.3), and 50% were
women. For this subsample, WAIS-R Vocabulary
age-corrected scaled scores ranged from 7 to 15;
the mean was 11.1 (SD = 1.9), which is roughly
equivalent to Average IQ (estimated IQ of approxi-
mately 105). As an additional index of intellectual
functioning on this subsample, WRAT-3 (Wil-
kinson, 1993) Reading subtest scores were ob-
tained, ranging from 86 to 117; the mean score (M
= 103.2, SD = 8.4) is roughly equivalent to mid-
Average IQ, consistent with Vocabulary-based
estimates.
The third sample was recruited in a major met-
ropolitan area on the west coast of the U.S., using
newspaper advertisements, local churches, and
senior citizen organizations. A total of 49 partici-
pants completed testing in that study. Of those, 46
were retained for the present sample. The ECFT
data from this sample have not appeared in any
other published paper. Age for the selected portion
of that sample ranged from 40 years to 81 years (M
= 62.8, SD = 13.0), education ranged from 12 years
to 20 years (M = 15.4, SD = 2.1), and 59% were
women. Only WRAT-3 Reading subtest scores
were obtained on this subsample, ranging from 71
to 117; the mean score (M = 105.7, SD = 8.4) is
roughly equivalent to an estimated IQ in the Aver-
age range.
A total of 211 participants were retained for the
present study. For the entire sample, age ranged
from 30 years to 85 years (M = 62.9, SD = 14.2),
education ranged from 12 years to 25 years (M =
14.9, SD = 2.6), and 55% were women. The esti-
33
mated IQ for the total sample based on reading or
vocabulary indices was 107, which is in the Aver-
age range. This sample was predominantly Cauca-
sian (over 95%).
Scores for the recall drawings were generated
using Osterrieth’s criteria (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey &
Osterrieth, 1993). Fastenau, Bennett, and Denburg
(1996) compared this relatively simple scoring
system to one that was much more elaborate. The
Osterrieth system was more efficient to learn, con-
siderably easier to apply, and at least equally reli-
able for novice and experienced raters from differ-
ent institutions. Correlations between recall and
recognition were equally strong for both scoring
systems; the same was true for correlations be-
tween copy and matching. The use of the Os-
terrieth system for the normative data is further
supported by survey data showing that most Rey
examiners use these scoring criteria (Knight et al.,
1994). The scoring system is reprinted in Lezak
(1995) and in Rey and Osterrieth (1993).
Recently, it has become popular to generate test
norms using multiple regression to correct for de-
mographic influences statistically. Limits of re-
gression-based norms have been argued theoreti-
cally (Fastenau & Adams, 1996) and demonstrated
empirically (Fastenau, 1998, in press-c). Thus,
ECFT norms will not rely on this method. Instead,
salient demographic influences are determined by
statistical analysis, and then the sample is subdi-
vided into representative subgroups. Raw scores
are converted to T scores and tabulated by age and
education groups for easy reference.
Procedure
All participants were administered the Rey and the
ECFT as part of a larger battery of tests. Testing
was administered by graduate students in clinical
psychology, all of whom had completed the assess-
ment training sequence of an APA-accredited doc-
toral training program and had substantial testing
experience.
Analyses
Multiple regression (MR) analyses were used to
assess the effects of age and education, both as
main effects and in interaction. MR was preferred
over the use of analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
because the former capitalizes on the full range of
variability in these two continuous independent
variables. Based on earlier studies with the Rey,
age and education effects have been observed with
some consistency; gender effects, on the other
hand, have consistently been very small and have
explained less than 3% of the variance (see Fas-
tenau, in press-b, for more discussion). Therefore,
34 PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.
age and education influences were tested under the
hypothesis of lower ECFT performance with in-
creasing age and with decreasing education (one-
tailed). Dependent variables were ECFT Copy,
Immediate Recall, Delayed Recall, Recognition,
and Matching, together with all scale and subscale
scores for the latter two trials.
RESULTS
For Copy, there was a main effect for age (p
.05, explaining 3% of the variance) and for edu-
cation (p .05, explaining an additional 2% of
the variance), Multiple R = .23, p .005. For
Immediate Recall, there was a main effect for
age (p .00005, explaining 14% of the variance)
and for education (p .0005, explaining an addi-
tional 5% of the variance), Multiple R = .44, p
.00005. For Delayed Recall, there was a main
effect for age (p .00005, explaining 13% of the
variance) and for education (p .005, explaining
an additional 3% of the variance), Multiple R =
.40, p .00005. There were no interactions for
Copy, Immediate, or Delayed trials.
For Recognition Total Scale, there was a
main effect for age (p .00005, explaining 22%
of the variance) and for education (p .01, ex-
plaining an additional 2% of the variance), Mul-
tiple R = .49, p .00005. For Recognition Global
Scale, there was a main effect for age (p .0001,
explaining 8% of the variance) and for education
(p .001, explaining an additional 3% of the
variance), Multiple R = .32, p .00005. For Rec-
ognition Detail Scale, there was a main effect
for age (p .00005, explaining 23% of the vari-
ance) and for education (p .05, explaining an
additional 2% of the variance), Multiple R = .50,
p .00005. For Recognition Left-Detail
Subscale, there was a main effect for age (p
.00005, explaining 18% of the variance) and for
education (p .05, explaining an additional 2%
of the variance), Multiple R = .45, p .00005.
For Recognition Right-Detail Subscale, there
was a main effect for age (p .00005, explaining
21% of the variance) but not for education (p >
.10), Multiple R = .46, p .00005. There were
no interactions for any Recognition scale or
subscale score.
For Matching Total Scale, there was an Age ×
Education interaction, Multiple R = .43, p
.00005. For Matching Left-Detail Subscale,
there was a main effect for education only, Mul-
tiple R = .25, p .0005. For Matching Right-De-
tail Subscale, there was an Age × Education in-
teraction, Multiple R = .36, p .00005.
In post hoc analyses, gender and its interac-
tions with age and education were analyzed,
again using MR. There was a main effect for
gender on Copy (p .05); beyond the age and
education effects, however, very little variance
( < 2%) was explained by gender. For Immedi-
ate Recall, Delayed Recall, and all scales and
subscales of Recognition and Matching, gender
failed to enter into the equation as a main effect
or in interaction (p > .05, two-tailed).
In Tables 1 through 9, the data were tabulated
in a manner recommended by Fastenau and Ad-
ams (1996). Because education explained very
little variance beyond age on Copy, Immediate
Recall, Delayed Recall, and Recognition, these
data were stratified by age only; this observation
of very small education influences and the
choice to stratify by age alone follows the prece-
dent by Meyers and Meyers (1995) for their rec-
ognition trial. Normative groups were created
using overlapping cells, a method introduced by
Pauker (1988). Scores were tabulated for easy
conversion to scaled scores that have a mean of
10 and a standard deviation of 3, using the same
layout as the WAIS-R tables (Wechsler, 1981)
and Mayo norms (Ivnik et al., 1992). The tables
were generated using the method described by
Ivnik and his colleagues (1992). The sample size
and gender ratio are provided for each age
group. Within each group, the mean and stan-
dard deviation are provided for each test score.
To use the tables, the user should first iden-
tify the table that has a midpoint age closest to
the examinee’s age. Each test score is tabulated
in its own column. Locate the examinee’s score
in the appropriate column. The value in the left
margin corresponding to the examinee’s score is
the age-corrected scaled score; the value in the
right margin is the centile rank corresponding to
that same scaled score.
Table 1. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 40 (Age Range = 30 – 50; n = 48).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– <1
3 0–22 0–4 0–4 0–4 –– –– –– 0–1 1
4 22.5–25 4.5–8 4.5–9 5–7 0 0–4 –– 2 2
5 25.5 8.5 –– 8 1 5–6 0 –– 3–5
6 26–28.5 9–11 9.5–10 9 2 –– 1 3 6–10

7 29–29.5 11.5–12.5 10.5–11 10–12 –– 7 –– 4 11–18

8 30–30.5 13–13.5 11.5–13.5 13 3 8–9 2 5 19–28

NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT

9 31–32.5 14–17.5 14–16.5 14–15 4 10–11 3 6 29–40

10 33–33.5 18–20.5 17–20 16–19 5 12–14 4 7 41–59

11 34–34.5 21–24 20.5–23 20–21 –– 15 –– 8 60–71

12 –– 24.5–27 23.5–25.5 22–23 6 16–17 5–6 –– 72–81
13 35–35.5 27.5–29.5 26–29.5 –– –– –– –– –– 82–89

14 –– 30–32.5 30–31 24–26 –– 18–19 –– 9 90–94

15 –– 33–33.5 31.5–32.5 –– –– –– 7 10 95–97
16 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 98
17 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 99
18 36 34–36 33–36 27–30 7 20–23 8–9 11 > 99

M 32.83 20.3 19.28 17.92 4.88 13.04 4.33 7.00

(SD) (3.10) (7.42) (7.29) (5.63) (1.79) (4.29) (1.95) (2.21)

Note. 54% female.

35
 36
Table 2. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 48 (Age Range = 40 – 55; n = 47).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– <1
3 0–13 0–4 0–4 0–4 –– 0–2 –– 0–1 1
4 13.5–19.5 4.5–5.5 4.5–5 5 0–1 3 0 2 2
5 20–22 6–8 5.5–7.5 6–7 –– 4 –– –– 3–5
6 22.5–24.5 8.5–10 8–9 8–9 2 5–6 –– –– 6–10

7 25–29.5 10.5–11 9.5–10 10 –– –– 1 3 11–18

8 30–30.5 11.5–12.5 10.5–11.5 11–13 3 7–8 –– 4 19–28
9 31–31.5 13–15 12–13.5 14 –– 9–10 2 5 29–40

PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.

10 32–33.5 15.5–18.5 14–18 15–17 4 11–13 3 6–7 41–59

11 –– 19–20.5 18.5–20 18–20 5 14 –– 8 60–71

12 34–34.5 21–23.5 20.5–23.5 21 –– 15 4–5 –– 72–81
13 35–35.5 24–28.5 24–26.5 22–23 –– 16–17 6 –– 82–89

14 –– 29–29.5 27–30.5 24 6 –– –– –– 90–94

15 –– 30–31.5 31 –– –– 18 7 9 95–97
16 –– 32–33.5 31.5–32.5 25–26 –– 19 –– –– 98
17 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 99
18 36 34–36 33–36 27–30 7 20–23 8–9 10–11 > 99

M 31.79 17.87 17.13 16.60 4.62 11.98 3.70 6.66

(SD) (4.55) (6.84) (7.04) (5.45) (1.57) (4.37) (1.96) (2.30)

Note. 62% female.

Table 3. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 53 (Age Range = 45– 60; n = 43).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– <1
3 0–13 0–3.5 0–4 0–3 –– –– –– 0 1
4 13.5–19.5 4–5.5 4.5–5 4 0 0–2 0 1–2 2
5 20–22 6–8 5.5–7.5 5 1 3 –– –– 3–5
6 22.5–24.5 8.5–10 8–9.5 6–9 2 4–6 –– –– 6–10

7 25–28.5 10.5–11 10 10 –– –– 1 3 11–18

8 29–30.5 11.5–12.5 10.5–13 11–13 –– 7–9 –– 4 19–28

NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT

9 31–31.5 13–15.5 13.5 14 3–4 10 2 5 29–40

10 32–33.5 16–19 14–18 15–17 –– 11–13 3 6–7 41–59

11 –– 19.5–20.5 18.5–20.5 18–20 5 14 –– 8 60–71

12 34–34.5 21–25.5 21–24.5 21 6 15 4–5 –– 72–81
13 –– 26–28.5 25–26.5 22–23 –– 16 –– –– 82–89

14 35–35.5 29–29.5 27–30.5 24 –– 17 6 –– 90–94

15 –– 30–31.5 31 –– –– 18 7 9 95–97
16 –– 32–33.5 31.5–32.5 25–26 –– 19 –– –– 98
17 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 99
18 36 34–36 33–36 27–30 7 20–23 8–9 10–11 > 99

M 31.62 18.07 17.48 16.65 4.74 11.91 3.56 6.67

(SD) (4.61) (7.11) (7.11) (5.61) (1.77) (4.43) (2.00) (2.36)

Note. 53% female.

37
 38
Table 4. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 58 (Age Range = 50– 65; n = 57).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– <1
3 0–13 0–3.5 0–4 0–3 0 –– –– 0 1
4 13.5–17 4–5 4.5–5 4–5 1 0–2 –– 1–2 2
5 17.5–22 5.5 5.5–7.5 6–8 –– 3–4 0 –– 3–5
6 22.5–24.5 6–8.5 –– 9 2 –– –– –– 6–10

7 25–28.5 9–10 8–10 10 –– 5–6 –– 3 11–18

8 29–30.5 10.5–12.5 10.5–13 11–12 3 7 1 4 19–28
9 31–31.5 13–15 13.5 13 4 8–9 –– 5 29–40

PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.

10 32–32.5 15.5–17.5 14–17.5 14–16 –– 10–11 2 6 41–59

11 33–33.5 18–19.5 18–19 17 5 12–13 3 7 60–71

12 –– 20–21 19.5–22.5 18–20 –– 14 4 8 72–81
13 34–34.5 21.5–23 23–24 21 6 15 5 –– 82–89

14 –– 23.5–25.5 24.5 22 –– 16 –– –– 90–94

15 35–35.5 26–28.5 25–27 23–24 –– 17 6 –– 95–97
16 –– 29–31.5 27.5–31 –– –– 18 7 9 98
17 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 99
18 36 32–36 31.5–36 25–30 7 19–23 8–9 10–11 > 99

M 31.17 16.55 16.44 15.77 4.82 10.95 3.05 6.32

(SD) (4.43) (6.08) (6.08) (4.76) (1.53) (3.93) (1.89) (2.11)

Note. 61% female.

Table 5. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 63 (Age Range = 55 – 70; n = 77).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 0–17 –– –– 0–3 –– –– –– –– <1
3 17.5–23.5 0–3.5 0–3.5 4–5 –– –– –– –– 1
4 –– –– –– –– 0 0–2 –– 0 2
5 24–24.5 4–5.5 4–7.5 6–7 1 3 –– 1–2 3–5
6 25–27.5 6–8.5 8–8.5 8 2 4 0 –– 6–10

7 28–29.5 9–10 9–10 9 –– 5–6 –– 3 11–18

8 30–30.5 10.5–11 10.5–12.5 10 3 7 1 –– 19–28

NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT

9 31–31.5 11.5–13.5 13–14 11–12 –– –– –– 4 29–40

10 32–33.5 14–16.5 14.5–17 13–14 4 8–9 2 5 41–59

11 –– 17–19 17.5–18.5 15–16 5 10–11 3 6 60–71

12 –– 19.5–20.5 19–20.5 17 –– –– –– –– 72–81
13 34–34.5 21–22.5 21–23 18–19 6 12–13 4 7 82–89

14 35–35.5 23–24.5 23.5–24.5 20–21 –– 14 5 8 90–94

15 –– 25–26.5 25–26.5 22–24 –– 15–17 –– –– 95–97
16 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 98
17 –– 27–29 27–32 –– –– –– 6–7 –– 99
18 36 29.5–36 32.5–36 25–30 7 18–23 8–9 9–11 > 99

M 31.94 15.52 15.91 14.38 4.71 9.66 2.70 5.39

(SD) (3.37) (5.82) (5.91) (4.43) (1.64) (3.52) (1.73) (2.07)

Note. 55% female.

39
 40
Table 6. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 68 (Age Range = 60 – 75; n = 96).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 0–17 –– –– 0–2 –– –– –– 0 <1
3 17.5–19 0–3.5 0–3.5 3 0 –– –– 1 1
4 19.5–21 4–5 4–5.5 4 –– 0–2 –– –– 2
5 21.5–24.5 5.5 6–6.5 5–6 1 3 –– –– 3–5
6 25–27.5 6–8.5 7–8 7–8 –– 4 –– 2 6–10

7 28–28.5 9–9.5 8.5–9.5 9 2 5 0 –– 11–18

8 29–30.5 10–11 10–11.5 10 –– 6 –– 3 19–28
9 31–31.5 11.5–13 12–13.5 11–12 3 7 1 –– 29–40

PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.

10 32–33.5 13.5–16 14–16 13 4 8–9 2 4–5 41–59

11 –– 16.5–18 16.5–18 14–15 –– 10 –– –– 60–71

12 34–34.5 18.5–20 18.5–19 16–17 5 11 3 6 72–81
13 –– 20.5–22 19.5–22 18 6 12–13 4 –– 82–89

14 35–35.5 22.5–24 22.5–24 19–20 –– 14 5 7 90–94

15 –– 24.5 24.5 21–22 –– 15 –– 8 95–97
16 –– 25–25.5 25–26 –– –– 16–17 –– –– 98
17 –– 26–29 26.5–32 23–24 –– –– 6–7 –– 99
18 36 29.5–36 32.5–36 25–30 7 18–23 8–9 9–11 > 99

M 31.76 15.18 15.29 13.57 4.42 9.16 2.54 5.11

(SD) (3.63) (5.58) (5.57) (4.43) (1.69) (3.45) (1.78) (1.87)

Note. 56% female.

Table 7. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 73 (Age Range = 65–80; n = 102).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 0–14 –– –– 0–2 –– –– –– 0 <1
3 14.5–19 0–3.5 0–3.5 3 0 –– –– 1 1
4 19.5–21 4–5 4 4 –– –– –– –– 2
5 21.5–23.5 5.5 4.5–6 5 –– 0–2 –– –– 3–5
6 24–26.5 6–7.5 6.5–7 6 1 3 –– 2 6–10

7 27–27.5 8–9 7.5–9 7 –– 4–5 0 –– 11–18

8 28–29.5 9.5–11 9.5–11 8–9 2 6 –– 3 19–28

NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT

9 30–30.5 11.5–12.5 11.5–12.5 10–11 3 7 1 –– 29–40

10 31–32.5 13–15.5 13–15.5 12–13 4 8 2 4 41–59

11 33–33.5 16–17 16–17 14 –– 9–10 3 5 60–71

12 34–34.5 17.5–19 17.5–19 15 5 11 –– 6 72–81
13 35–35.5 19.5–21.5 19.5–21.5 16–18 –– 12 –– –– 82–89

14 –– 22–24 22–23 19 6 13 4–5 –– 90–94

15 –– 24.5 23.5–25.5 20–21 –– 14–15 –– 7 95–97
16 –– –– 26 22 –– –– –– 8 98
17 –– 25–29 26.5–32 –– –– 16–17 6–7 –– 99
18 36 29.5–36 32.5–36 23–30 7 18–23 8–9 9–11 > 99

M 31.38 14.68 14.61 12.80 4.05 8.75 2.46 4.85

(SD) (4.00) (5.49) (5.58) (4.44) (1.77) (3.35) (1.73) (1.74)

Note. 52% female.

41
 42
Table 8. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 78 (Age Range = 70 – 85; n = 83).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 0–14 –– 0–1.5 0–2 –– –– –– 0 <1
3 14.5–19 –– 2–3.5 3 0 –– –– 1 1
4 19.5–21 0–3.5 4 4 –– –– –– –– 2
5 21.5–22.5 4–5.5 4.5–5.5 –– –– 0–2 –– –– 3–5
6 23–25.5 6–7 6–6.5 5 –– 3 –– –– 6–10

7 26–27.5 7.5–8.5 7–7.5 6 1 4 0 2 11–18

8 28–28.5 9–10 8–9.5 7–8 2 5 –– –– 19–28
9 29–30.5 10.5–11.5 10–12 9–10 –– 6 1 3 29–40

PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.

10 31–32.5 12–14 12.5–14 11–13 3 7–8 –– 4 41–59

11 33–33.5 14.5–16.5 14.5–16.5 14 4 9 2 5 60–71

12 –– 17–18.5 17–18 15 –– 10–11 3 6 72–81
13 34–34.5 19–21 18.5–20.5 16–18 5 12 –– –– 82–89

14 35–35.5 21.5–23.5 21–22 19 –– 13–14 4–5 –– 90–94

15 –– 24 22.5–24 20 6 15 –– 7 95–97
16 –– 24.5 –– 21 –– –– –– –– 98
17 –– 25–28 24.5–25.5 22 –– –– –– 8 99
18 36 28.5–36 26–36 23–30 7 16–23 6–9 9–11 > 99

M 30.87 14.01 13.64 12.08 3.80 8.29 2.30 4.63

(SD) (4.16) (5.45) (5.31) (4.68) (1.72) (3.44) (1.69) (1.84)

Note. 53% female.

Table 9. Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions for the Rey and for the Extended Complex Figure Test Recognition Trial.
Midpoint Age = 80 (Age Range = 75 – 85; n = 49).

Recognition Scales

Scaled Scores Copy Immediate Delayed Total Global Detail Left Right Percentile Range
2 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– <1
3 0–14 –– 0–1.5 0–3 –– –– –– 0 1
4 14.5–19 0–3.5 2–4 4 –– –– –– 1 2
5 19.5–22 4–5 4.5 –– –– 0–2 –– –– 3–5
6 22.5–24 5.5–7.5 5–6.5 5 –– 3 –– –– 6–10

7 24.5–27 8 7–7.5 6 0 –– 0 –– 11–18

8 27.5 8.5–10 8–9 –– 1 4–5 –– 2 19–28

NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT

9 28–28.5 10.5–11 9.5–11.5 7–8 2 –– 1 3 29–40

10 29–31.5 11.5–14 12–14 9–13 3 6–8 –– 4 41–59

11 32–33.5 14.5–16.5 14.5–15.5 14 4 9 2–3 5 60–71

12 –– 17–18.5 16–17 –– –– 10 –– –– 72–81
13 34–34.5 19 17.5–19.5 15–16 –– 11 –– 6 82–89

14 35–35.5 19.5–23 20–22 17–19 5 12–13 4 –– 90–94

15 –– 23.5 22.5–24 20 6 14 5 7 95–97
16 –– 24–28 24.5–25.5 –– –– 15 –– –– 98
17 –– –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 99
18 36 28.5–36 26–36 21–30 7 16–23 6–9 8–11 > 99

M 30.14 13.67 13.17 11.47 3.45 8.02 2.27 4.51

(SD) (4.52) (5.38) (5.32) (4.80) (1.74) (3.46) (1.62) (1.87)

Note. 51% female.

43
44 PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.

Matching data warranted different treatment
from the other trials for several reasons. First,
these subscales showed stronger education influ-
ences, in addition to age. Second, these distribu-
tions were very skewed. Finally, two of the three
Matching scores were based only on four items.
Thus, these scores were best treated as screening
tools. Table 10 lists each variable, stratified by
education and by age, together with the cutoff
values for the 5th centile and for the 15th per-
centile. For the appropriate scale and the appro-
priate age-education subgroup, a score at or be-
low the tabled value would be abnormally low at
the specified level. For example, a score of 8
would be clearly abnormal for an older adult
with a college education (at or below the 5th
centile) but within normal limits for an elder
with a high school education (above the 15th
centile).
DISCUSSION
Research has been mounting for the Rey and for
the recognition and matching trials that supple-
ment the Rey figure to comprise the ECFT. The
present study builds on the rapidly emerging
literature on these tests by providing norms from
a relatively large sample of healthy adults using
the popular Osterrieth scoring system. The data
are tabulated in a useful format, following many
of the recommendations by Fastenau and Adams
(1996).
This sample was moderately to well educated
(high school education or higher), although the
average estimated IQ was in the Average range.
The participants were predominantly Caucasian,
and all were fluent in English. Applications to
other ethnic or linguistic groups should be quali-
fied accordingly. Although gender ratios vary
considerably among groups, these should be in-
consequential given the lack of interaction be-
tween gender and age.
There are many new prospects for further re-
search. First, although the ECFT was designed
with children in mind, there are currently no
normative data for children or adolescents. Sec-
ond, it would be invaluable to examine the char-
acteristics of the ECFT with theoretically rele-
vant patient groups. For example, people with
left and right hemi-inattention should show dif-
ferentiation of the Left- and Right-Detail Sub-
scales on both Recognition and Matching; peo-
ple with multiple sclerosis and people with
pseudodementia should show characteristic re-
trieval inefficiencies (i.e., poor recall and stron-
ger recognition) whereas those with Alzhei-
mer’s-type dementia should show encoding fail-

Table 10. Extended Complex Figure Test Matching Trial Cutoff Scores (Percentile Rank), by Age and Educa-
tion.

Younger Older
(Ages 30 – 65) (Ages 66 – 85)

Subscale Less Educ More Educ Less Educ More Educ

(12 – 14 Years) (15+ Years) (12 – 14 Years) (15+ Years)
(n = 39) (n = 62) (n = 65) (n = 45)
Matching Total
5th centile 7 8 7 8
15th centile 8 9 7 9

Matching Left-Detail
5th centile 2 3 3 3
15th centile 3 4 3 3

Matching Right-Detail
5th centile 2 2 1 3
15th centile 3 3 2 3
 NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT
ure and rapid forgetting (i.e., poor recall and
recognition).
Third, it could be very useful to standardize
alternative administrations of the ECFT for pa-
tients with manual impairments, develop parallel
forms for intervention studies and longitudinal
research, and assess test-retest reliability. Com-
puting risk ratios for various diagnoses or func-
tional outcomes is yet another avenue of re-
search with the ECFT (see Bieliauskas, Faste-
nau, Lacy, & Roper, 1998).
Finally, the limited verbal demands of the
ECFT would seem to lend it to cross-cultural
applications. Cross-cultural investigations of
visual-spatial memory development are espe-
cially intriguing given the apparent role of read-
ing training in the cerebral organization of vi-
sual memory span (Conant, Fastenau, Giordani,
Boivin, Chounramany et al., 1997; Conant, Fas-
tenau, Giordani, Boivin, Opel, & Nseyila, 1997,
1998; Fastenau, Conant, & Lauer, 1998). These
research possibilities and others are considered
in greater detail by Fastenau (in press-b).
REFERENCES
Berry, D. T. R., Allen, R. S., & Schmitt, F. A. (1991).
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Psychometric
characteristics in a geriatric sample. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 5, 143-153.
Bieliauskas, L. A., Fastenau, P. S., Lacy, M. A., &
Roper, B. L. (1997). Use of the odds ratio to trans-
late neuropsychological test scores into real-world
outcomes: From statistical significance to clinical
significance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 19, 889-896.
Binder, L. M. (1982). Constructional strategies on
Complex Figure drawings after unilateral brain
damage. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology,
4(1), 51-58.
Boone, K. B., Lesser, I. M., Hill-Gutierrez, E.,
Berman, N. G., & D’Elia, L. F. (1993). Rey-
Osterrieth Complex Figure performance in healthy,
older adults: Relationship to age, education, sex,
and IQ. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 7, 22-28.
Bornstein, R. A., & Suga, L. J. (1988). Educational
level and neuropsychological performance in
healthy elderly subjects. Developmental Neuropsy-
chology, 4, 17-22.
Brandys, C. F., & Rourke, B. P. (1991). Differential
memory abilities in reading- and arithmetic-dis-
45
abled children. In B. P. Rourke (Ed.), Neuropsy-
chological validation of learning disability sub-
types (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
Brouwers, P., Cox, C., Martin, A., Chase, T., & Fedio,
P. (1984). Differential perceptual-spatial impair-
ment in Huntington’s and Alzheimer’s dementias.
Archives of Neurology, 41, 1073-1076.
Casey, M. B., Winner, E., Hurwitz, I., & DaSilva, D.
(1991). Does processing style affect recall of the
Rey-Osterrieth or Taylor Complex Figures? Jour-
nal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychol-
ogy, 13, 600-606.
Conant, L. L., Fastenau, P. S., Giordani, B., Boivin,
M. J., Chounramany, C., Xaisida, S., Choula-
mountry, L., Pholsena, P., & Olness, K. (1997).
Relationships among memory span tasks: A cross-
cultural, developmental perspective [Abstract]. The
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 304.
Conant, L. L., Fastenau, P. S., Giordani, B., Boivin,
M. J., Opel, B., & Nseyila, D. D. (1997). Develop-
mental trends in visual and verbal memory span in
Zaïrian children [Abstract]. Journal of the Interna-
tional Neuropsychological Society, 3, 26.
Conant, L. L., Fastenau, P. S., Giordani, B., Boivin,
M. J., Opel, B., & Nseyila, D. D. (1998). Modality
specificity of memory span tasks among Zaïrian
children: A developmental study. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Fastenau, P. S. (1996a). Development and preliminary
standardization of the ‘‘Extended Complex Figure
Test’’ (ECFT). Journal of Clinical and Experimen-
tal Neuropsychology, 18, 63-76.
Fastenau, P. S. (1996b). An elaborated administration
of the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised. The Clini-
cal Neuropsychologist, 10, 425-434.
Fastenau, P. S. (1998). Distortions in regression-based
norms: Effects of age and education corrections
among older adults [Abstract]. Journal of the Inter-
national Neuropsychological Society, 4, 54.
Fastenau, P. S. (in press-a). The Extended Complex
Figure Test (ECFT). Los Angeles: Western Psy-
chological Services.
Fastenau, P. S. (in press-b). Extended Complex Figure
Test (ECFT): Rationale and empirical support for
recognition and matching. In J. A. Knight & E. F.
Kaplan (Eds.), The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
Test: Clinical and research applications. Odessa,
FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Fastenau, P. S. (in press-c). Validity of regression-
based norms: An empirical test of the Comprehen-
sive Norms with older adults. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology.
Fastenau, P. S., & Adams, K. M. (1996). Heaton,
Grant, and Matthews’ Comprehensive Norms: An
overzealous attempt. Journal of Clinical and Ex-
perimental Neuropsychology, 18, 444-448.
Fastenau, P. S., Bennett, J. M., & Denburg, N. L.
(1996). Application of psychometric standards to
46 PHILIP S. FASTENAU ET AL.
scoring system evaluation: Is ‘‘new’’ necessarily
‘‘improved’’? Journal of Clinical and Experimen-
tal Neuropsychology, 18, 462-472.
Fastenau, P. S., Bennett, J. M., & Fisk, J. L. (1996).
Memory consolidation in temporal lobe epilepsy:
Effects of immediate recall [Abstract]. The Clini-
cal Neuropsychologist, 10, 336.
Fastenau, P. S., Conant, L. L., & Lauer, R. E. (1998).
Working memory in young children: Evidence for
modality-specificity and implications for cerebral
reorganization in early childhood. Neuropsychol-
ogia, 7, 643-652.
Fastenau, P. S., & Denburg, N. L. (1994). Reliability
and validity of the Extended Complex Figure Test
(ECFT) [Abstract]. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 1, 356.
Fastenau, P. S., & Denburg, N. L. (1997). Effects of
pen color on Rey Complex Figure performances
[Abstract]. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology,
12, 316-317.
Fastenau, P. S., Denburg, N. L., & Abeles, N.
(1996a). Age differences in retrieval: Further sup-
port for a resource-reduction hypothesis. Psychol-
ogy and Aging, 11, 140-146.
Fastenau, P. S., Denburg, N. L., & Abeles, N.
(1996b). The role of attention in aging retrieval:
Relative sparing with greater visual involvement.
Brain and Cognition, 30, 393-396.
Fastenau, P. S., Denburg, N. L., & Domitrovic, L. A.
(1997). Intentional and incidental memory: Order
effects in clinical testing. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice, 28, 32-35.
Fastenau, P. S., Denburg, N. L., & Mauer, B. A. (in
press). Parallel short forms for the Boston Naming
Test: Psychometric properties and elder norms.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-
chology.
Fastenau, P. S., & Fisk, J. L. (1997a). Use of memory
scores to predict side of resection in epilepsy sur-
gery [Abstract]. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and
Clinical Neurosciences, 9, 168-169.
Fastenau, P. S., & Fisk, J. L. (1997b). Use of visual
memory tests to discriminate between left and right
temporal lobe epilepsy [Abstract]. Journal of Neu-
ropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 9, 169.
Fastenau, P. S., & Manning, A. A. (1992). Develop-
ment of a recognition task for the Complex Figure
Test [Abstract]. Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Neuropsychology, 14, 43.
Fastenau, P. S., Smet, I. C., Giordani, B., Miller, A.
C., Tandon, R., & Berent, S. (1998). Spared visual-
spatial recall and recognition in medically refrac-
tory depression [Abstract]. Journal of the Interna-
tional Neuropsychological Society, 4, 5.
Fastenau, P. S., Unverzagt, F. W., Koop, J. I., &
Hufford, B. J. (1998). Validation of the Rey Figure
and Extended Complex Figure Test for discrimi-
nating Alzheimer’s disease from normal aging.
Paper submitted for presentation at the Annual
Meeting of the International Neuropsychological
Society, Boston, MA.
Hamby, S. L., Wilkins, J. W., & Barry, N. S. (1993).
Organizational quality on the Rey-Osterrieth and
Taylor Complex Figure Tests: A new scoring sys-
tem. Psychological Assessment, 5, 27-33.
Hawkins, K. A., Sledge, W. H., Orleans, J. F.,
Quinlan, D. M., Rakfeldt, J., & Hoffman, R. E.
(1993). Normative implications of the relationship
between reading vocabulary and Boston Naming
Test performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsy-
chology, 8, 525-537.
Heilbronner, R. L. (1992). The search for a ‘‘pure’’
visual memory test: Pursuit of perfection? The
Clinical Neuropsychologist, 6, 105-112.
Ivnik, R. J., Malec, J. F., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E.
G., Petersen, R. C., Kokmen, E., & Kurland, L. T.
(1992). Mayo’s older American normative studies:
WAIS-R norms for ages 56 to 97. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 6 (Suppl.), 1-30.
Jones-Gotman, M. (1986). Memory for designs: The
hippocampal contribution. Neuropsychologia, 24,
193-203.
Kaplan, E. (1988). A process approach to neuropsy-
chological assessment. In T. Boll & B. K. Bryant
(Eds.), Clinical neuropsychology and brain func-
tion: Research, measurement, and practice (pp.
125-167). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association.
Karapetsas, A., & Kantas, A. (1991). Visuomotor or-
ganization in the child: A neuropsychological ap-
proach. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 211-217.
Klicpera, C. (1983). Poor planning as a characteristic
of problem-solving behavior in dyslexic children:
A study with the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
Test. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 49, 73-82.
Knight, J. A., & Kaplan, E. F. (Eds., in press). The
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test: Clinical and
research applications. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Knight, J. A., Kaplan, E. F., & Ireland, L. D. (1994,
February). Survey findings of Rey-Osterrieth Com-
plex Figure use among the INS membership [Ab-
stract]. Journal of the International Neuropsycho-
logical Society, 1, 355.
Leininger, B. E., Gramling, S. E., Farrell, A. D.,
Kreutzer, J. S., & Peck III, E. A. (1990). Neuropsy-
chological deficits in symptomatic minor head in-
jury patients after concussion and mild concussion.
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychia-
try, 53, 293-296.
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment
(2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Loring, D. W., Lee, G. P., & Meador, K. J. (1988).
Revising the Rey-Osterrieth: Rating right hemi-
sphere recall. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychol-
ogy, 3, 239-247.
 NORMS FOR THE REY AND ECFT
McClain, L. (1983). Encoding and retrieval in schizo-
phrenics’ free recall. Journal of Nervous and Men-
tal Disease, 171, 471-479.
McManis, S. E., Brown, G. R., Zachary, R., &
Rundell, J. R. (1993). A screening test for subtle
cognitive impairment early in the course of HIV
infection. Psychosomatics, 34, 424-431.
Meyers, J. E., & Meyers, K. R. (1995). Rey Complex
Figure Test and Recognition Trial. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Milanovic, L., Spilich, G., Vucinic, G., & Knezevic,
S. (1990). Effects of occupational exposure to or-
ganic solvents upon cognitive performance. Neuro-
toxicity and Teratology, 12, 657-660.
Miller, L. A., Muñoz, D. G., & Finmore, M. (1993).
Hippocampal sclerosis and human memory. Ar-
chives of Neurology, 50, 391-394.
Orsini, , D. L., Van Gorp, W. G., & Boone, K. B.
(1988). The neuropsychology casebook. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test du copie d’une figure
complexe. Archives of Psychology (Chicago), 30,
206-356.
Parkin, A. J., Dunn, J. C., Lee, C., O’Hara, P. F., &
Nussbaum, L. (1993). Neuropsychological se-
quelae of Wernicke’s encephalopathy in a 20-year-
old woman: Selective impairment of a frontal
memory system. Brain and Cognition, 21, 1-19.
Pauker, J. D. (1988). Constructing overlapping cell
tables to maximize the clinical usefulness of nor-
mative test data: Rationale and an example from
neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
44, 930-933.
Paulsen, J. S., Heaton, R. K, Sadek, J. R., Perry, W.,
Delis, D. C., Braff, D., Kuck, J., Zisook, S., &
Jeste, D. V. (1995). The nature of learning and
memory impairments in schizophrenia. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 1,
88-99.
Prior, M., & Hoffmann, W. (1990). Neuropsychologi-
cal testing of autistic children through an explora-
tion with frontal lobe tests. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 20, 581-590.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas
d’encephalopathie traumatique. Archives of Psy-
chology (Chicago), 28, 286-340.
47
Rey, A., & Osterrieth, P. A. (1993). Translations of
excerpts from André Rey’s ‘‘Psychological exami-
nation of traumatic encephalopathy’’ and P. A.
Osterrieth’s ‘‘The complex figure copy test’’ (J.
Corwin & F. W. Bylsma, Trans.). The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 7, 3-21. (Original works pub-
lished in 1941 and 1944, respectively).
Ross, T. P., & Lichtenberg, P. A. (1997). Expanded
normative data for the Boston Naming Test in an
urban medical sample of elderly adults [Abstract].
Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 3, 70.
Roselli, M., & Ardila, A. (1991). Effects of age, edu-
cation, and gender on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex
Figure. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 5, 370-
376.
Smet, I. C. (1997). The neuropsychology of schizo-
phrenia. Colloquium presented at Department of
Psychology, Indiana University – Purdue Univer-
sity Indianapolis (IUPUI), April 18, 1997.
Squire, L. R. (1986). The neuropsychology of mem-
ory dysfunction and its assessment. In I. Grant &
K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assess-
ment of neuropsychiatric disorders (pp. 268-299).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, L. B. (1969). Localisation of cerebral lesions
by psychological testing. Clinical Neurosurgery,
16, 269-287.
Waber, D. P., & Holmes, J. M. (1985). Assessing chil-
dren’s copy productions of the Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure. Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Neuropsychology, 7, 264-280.
Waber, D. P., & Holmes, J. M. (1986). Assessing chil-
dren’s memory productions of the Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure. Journal of Clinical and Experi-
mental Neuropsychology, 8, 563-580.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Revised manual. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M-M. (1985). Mental
state assessment of young and elderly adults in be-
havioral neurology. In M-M Mesulam (Ed.), Prin-
ciples of behavioral neurology (pp. 71-123). Phila-
delphia: F. A. Davis.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement
Test (3rd ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range.