1. Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT)

2. SPAT Structure Similar to WMS “paired associates” subtest 14 sign pairs – 7 easy & 7 hard Based on sign associate frequency research Immediate recall phase (4 learning trails) Delayed recall phase (free, then cued) 9 primary scores 3 immediate recall 6 delayed recall

3. SPAT Studies DeMatteo, Pollard, & Lentz, 1987 Initial norms, negative correlation with age Pollard, Rediess, & DeMatteo, 2005 38 healthy deaf adults Mean age 27.7 (s.d., 4.8, range 18-34) 55% male, 45% female 35 deaf adults referred for neuropsych. testing Mean age 30.6 (s.d., 8.9, range 18-57) 59% male, 41% female

4. Pollard, Rediess & DeMatteo, 2005 Healthy sample Screened for neurological deficits WAIS-R PIQ (required >70 to participate) SPAT, ASL Stories Test administered Clinical sample Suspected of brain impairment PIQ or Ravens IQ > 70 required for study SPAT and other tests deemed necessary

5. 2005 SPAT Study Results Age of two samples not significantly different Mean IQ differed (p =.007) Healthy 103.9 (s.d., 13.0, range 75-128) Clinical 94.3 (s.d., 16.1, range 70-124 Performance on nine SPAT scores very similar to DeMatteo, Pollard, & Lentz, 1987

6. SPAT Norms Immediate RecallDelayed Free RecallDelayed Free + Cued Recall Easy Total Hard Total Sum Total Easy Total Hard Total Sum Total Easy Total Hard Total Sum Total Maximum Possible 28 56771477 Current study 26.5 (2.4) 18.4 (5.7) 44.9 (7.4) 4.6 (1.2) 4.6 (1.7) 9.2 (2.5) 6.9 (0.4) 5.8 (1.7) 12.7 (1.9) DeMatteo, et al. 25.7 (4.0) 18.0 (6.2) 43.7 (9.4) 4.5 (1.2) 4.4 (1.9) 8.9 (2.8) 6.8 (0.9) 5.7 (2.1) 12.5 (2.8)

7. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) All 13 scores (9 primary scores and 4 trial-by- trail learning totals) significantly differed between healthy and clinical groups. Learning curves evidenced for both groups but harder for clinical sample PIQ positively correlated with all 9 primary SPAT scores

8. Healthy v. Clinical Performance

9. SPAT-PIQ Correlations SPAT Scorer valuep value Immediate Recall Easy Total.30.011 Immediate Recall Hard Total.47<.001 Immediate Recall Sum Total.45<.001 Delayed Free Recall Easy Total.48<.001 Delayed Free Recall Hard Total.46<.001 Delayed Free Recall Sum Total.50<.001 Delayed Free + Cued Recall Easy Total.27.021 Delayed Free + Cued Recall Hard Total.49<.001 Delayed Free + Cued Recall Sum Total.46<.001

10. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) Retention scores Recall (free and delayed) expressed as percentage of total learned by trial 4 69% retention at delayed free recall ~100% retention delayed fee + cued recall These percentages the same for both groups No significant differences in retention scores

11. 2005 SPAT Results (cont.) Forward step-wise discriminate analysis What contributed most to SPAT performance? 7 of 9 primary SPAT scores & PIQ/Ravens Final analysis included: Immediate recall hard total PIQ/Ravens IQ Delayed free + cued recall hard total Consistent finding that learning and retention of hard pairs is most clinically salient aspect

12. “It acts like we expect a verbal learning and memory test to act” Performance patters similar to WMS P.A. and other “hearing” verbal tests Improved retention over learning trials Semantically related easier than non-related PIQ positively correlated with performance Age negatively correlated with performance (DeMatteo, et al., 1987 and pilot study only) These findings speak to construct validity

13. Construct and Discriminate Validity In every performance indicator tested, the clinical sample performed more poorly than the healthy sample Finding that immediate and delayed recall total hard scores best differentiated the two samples parallels research showing that semantically unrelated word pair learning is a sensitive measure of memory impairment in hearing clinical samples and healthy elderly people Sensitive but not too specific = more useful test

14. Future Research & Clinical Ideas Norms needed for elderly and children! Interpreted vs. direct administration Correlation with education Other clinical samples Deaf subpopulations (e.g. at risk etiologies) Performance of those with less ASL fluency Correlation with non-verbal learning tests Correlation with “hearing” verbal learning tests Altered administration (voice, length, delay period)