David W Loring, Felicia C Goldstein, James J Lah, Daniel M Bolt
{"title":"Recognizing improved Complex Figure memory assessment: The Emory 4-choice Complex Figure recognition task.","authors":"David W Loring, Felicia C Goldstein, James J Lah, Daniel M Bolt","doi":"10.1017/S135561772510115X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We compare the Emory 10-item, 4-choice Rey Complex Figure (CF) Recognition task with the Meyers and Lange (M&L) 24-item yes/no CF Recognition task in a large cohort of healthy research participants and in patients with heterogeneous movement disorder diagnoses. While both tasks assess CF recognition, they differ in key aspects including the saliency of target and distractor responses, self-selection versus forced-choice formats, and the length of the item sets.</p><p><strong>Participants and methods: </strong>There were 1056 participants from the Emory Healthy Brain Study (EHBS; average MoCA = 26.8, SD = 2.4) and 223 movement disorder patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation (average MoCA = 24.3, SD = 4.0).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both recognition tasks differentiated between healthy and clinical groups; however, the Emory task demonstrated a larger effect size (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 1.02) compared to the M&L task (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.79). d-prime scoring of M&L recognition showed comparable group discrimination (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.81). Unidimensional two-parameter logistic item response theory analysis revealed that many M&L items had low discrimination values and extreme difficulty parameters, which contributed to the task's reduced sensitivity, particularly at lower cognitive proficiency levels relevant to clinical diagnosis. Dimensionality analyses indicated the influence of response sets as a potential contributor to poor item performance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Emory CF Recognition task demonstrates superior psychometric properties and greater sensitivity to cognitive impairment compared to the M&L task. Its ability to more precisely measure lower levels of cognitive functioning, along with its brevity, suggests it may be more effective for diagnostic use, especially in clinical populations with cognitive decline.</p>","PeriodicalId":49995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S135561772510115X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: We compare the Emory 10-item, 4-choice Rey Complex Figure (CF) Recognition task with the Meyers and Lange (M&L) 24-item yes/no CF Recognition task in a large cohort of healthy research participants and in patients with heterogeneous movement disorder diagnoses. While both tasks assess CF recognition, they differ in key aspects including the saliency of target and distractor responses, self-selection versus forced-choice formats, and the length of the item sets.
Participants and methods: There were 1056 participants from the Emory Healthy Brain Study (EHBS; average MoCA = 26.8, SD = 2.4) and 223 movement disorder patients undergoing neuropsychological evaluation (average MoCA = 24.3, SD = 4.0).
Results: Both recognition tasks differentiated between healthy and clinical groups; however, the Emory task demonstrated a larger effect size (Cohen's d = 1.02) compared to the M&L task (Cohen's d = 0.79). d-prime scoring of M&L recognition showed comparable group discrimination (Cohen's d = 0.81). Unidimensional two-parameter logistic item response theory analysis revealed that many M&L items had low discrimination values and extreme difficulty parameters, which contributed to the task's reduced sensitivity, particularly at lower cognitive proficiency levels relevant to clinical diagnosis. Dimensionality analyses indicated the influence of response sets as a potential contributor to poor item performance.
Conclusions: Emory CF Recognition task demonstrates superior psychometric properties and greater sensitivity to cognitive impairment compared to the M&L task. Its ability to more precisely measure lower levels of cognitive functioning, along with its brevity, suggests it may be more effective for diagnostic use, especially in clinical populations with cognitive decline.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 4,500 international members from a variety of disciplines. The Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society welcomes original, creative, high quality research papers covering all areas of neuropsychology. The focus of articles may be primarily experimental, applied, or clinical. Contributions will broadly reflect the interest of all areas of neuropsychology, including but not limited to: development of cognitive processes, brain-behavior relationships, adult and pediatric neuropsychology, neurobehavioral syndromes (such as aphasia or apraxia), and the interfaces of neuropsychology with related areas such as behavioral neurology, neuropsychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. Papers that utilize behavioral, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological measures are appropriate.
To assure maximum flexibility and to promote diverse mechanisms of scholarly communication, the following formats are available in addition to a Regular Research Article: Brief Communication is a shorter research article; Rapid Communication is intended for "fast breaking" new work that does not yet justify a full length article and is placed on a fast review track; Case Report is a theoretically important and unique case study; Critical Review and Short Review are thoughtful considerations of topics of importance to neuropsychology and include meta-analyses; Dialogue provides a forum for publishing two distinct positions on controversial issues in a point-counterpoint format; Special Issue and Special Section consist of several articles linked thematically; Letter to the Editor responds to recent articles published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society; and Book Review, which is considered but is no longer solicited.