10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 1

Who Do They Think Who Do They Think They’re KiddingThey’re Kidding

Use of the Word Memory Test with Use of the Word Memory Test with Children: Follow-up ResultsChildren: Follow-up Results

Martin L. Rohling, Ph.D.Martin L. Rohling, Ph.D.Associate Professor, Dept. of PsychologyAssociate Professor, Dept. of Psychology

University of South Alabama, Mobile, ALUniversity of South Alabama, Mobile, AL

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 2

Which kids are we going to examine?

Data Source 1: Psychological Clinic on the campus of the University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL. (n = 55)

Data Source 2: Randi Most, private practice in Jacksonville, FL. (n = 54)

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 3

Demographics: AgeM = 10.0 (sd = 3.1)

Group Sample N Mean SD

Age 6-7 27 6.4 .09

Age 8-9 26 8.5 .10

Age 10-12 30 11.0 .16

Age 13-17 26 14.3 1.26

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 4

Demographics: Gender

Group Male Female % Male

Age 6-7 15 12 56%

Age 8-9 13 13 50%

Age 10-12 22 8 73%

Age 13-17 13 13 50%

Overall 63 46 58%

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 5

Reasons for Referral

Group N % of Sample

ADHD 37 34%

LD 22 20%

LD/ADHD 7 6%

Dev. Delay 13 12%

MR 4 4%

Psych Sx 9 8%

Gifted 3 3%

Volunteer 14 13%

Total 109 ---

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 6

Adult Data

Young Adults <= 25 y/oN = 49

Age = 21.6 (sd = 1.7)

Ed = 14.3 (sd = 1.9)

Adults > 25 y/oN = 50

Age = 33.3 (sd = 10.7)

Ed = 14.3 (sd = 2.3)

12 12.110 10.1

1 1.01 1.0

11 11.164 64.699 100.0

Count PercentADHDLDLD/ADHDMRPsychNoneTotal

Final Diagnosis

Referral Question

44 44.426 26.3

7 7.11 1.04 4.0

17 17.299 100.0

Count PercentADHDLDLD/ADHDMRPsychVolunteerTotal

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 7

Post Assessment Dx Classification

Group N % of Sample

ADHD 29 27%

LD 15 14%

LD/ADHD 5 5%

Dev. Delay 15 14%

MR 3 3%

Psych Sx 9 8%

Gifted 1 1%

No Diagnosis 32 29%

Total 109 ---

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 8

Age Effect on WMT IR & DR(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)

Means (SD)

Age 6-7 = 15 (31)

Age 8-9 = 31 (28)

Age 10-12 = 36 (23)

Age 13-17 = 46 (13)

Age 18-25 = 41 (26)

Age > 25 = 44 (20)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld A

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT Effort1 TEffect: Age Grp3

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 9

27 80.9 12.2 2.3

26 86.2 11.8 2.3

30 87.9 11.8 2.2

26 92.2 7.0 1.4

43 91.2 11.3 1.7

45 92.3 9.8 1.5

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Child age 6-7

Child age 8-9

Child age 10-12

Child Age 13-17

Yg Adult

Adult

Means Table for WMT IR%Effect: Age Grp3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cell

Mean

Child

age 6

-7

Child

age 8

-9

Child

age 1

0-1

2

Child

Age 1

3-1

7

Yg A

dult

Adult

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT IR%Effect: Age Grp3

27 78.9 16.2 3.1

26 88.8 14.6 2.9

30 91.5 10.4 1.9

26 95.6 5.4 1.1

43 92.3 13.0 2.0

45 93.6 9.0 1.3

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Child age 6-7

Child age 8-9

Child age 10-12

Child Age 13-17

Yg Adult

Adult

Means Table for WMT DR%Effect: Age Grp3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cell

Mean

Child

age 6

-7

Child

age 8

-9

Child

age 1

0-1

2

Child

Age 1

3-1

7

Yg A

dult

Adult

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT DR%Effect: Age Grp3

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 10

Age Effect on WMT MC & PA(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)

Means (SD)

Age 6-7 = 26 (14)

Age 8-9 = 37 (10)

Age 10-12 = 52 (13)

Age 13-17 = 46 (14)

Age 18-25 = 48 (13)

Age > 25 = 45 (14)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld A

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 11

9 44.4 22.6 7.5

9 62.8 18.0 6.0

12 87.9 20.8 6.0

22 76.8 22.2 4.7

39 79.2 22.1 3.5

44 75.1 21.9 3.3

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Child age 6-7

Child age 8-9

Child age 10-12

Child Age 13-17

Yg Adult

Adult

Means Table for WMT MC%Effect: Age Grp3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cell

Mean

Child

age 6

-7

Child

age 8

-9

Child

age 1

0-1

2

Child

Age 1

3-1

7

Yg A

dult

Adult

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT MC%Effect: Age Grp3

9 42.2 27.4 9.1

9 59.4 16.7 5.6

12 80.8 22.1 6.4

22 73.0 26.2 5.6

38 78.4 20.9 3.4

42 73.2 23.3 3.6

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Child age 6-7

Child age 8-9

Child age 10-12

Child Age 13-17

Yg Adult

Adult

Means Table for WMT PA%Effect: Age Grp3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Cell

Mean

Child

age 6

-7

Child

age 8

-9

Child

age 1

0-1

2

Child

Age 1

3-1

7

Yg A

dult

Adult

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT PA%Effect: Age Grp3

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 12

Age Effect on WMT Del. FR(T Scores with 97 Brain Injured Adults as Normative Group)

Means (SD)

Age 6-7 = 31 (10)

Age 8-9 = 39 (14)

Age 10-12 = 47 (12)

Age 13-17 = 47 (13)

Age 18-25 = 48 (14)

Age > 25 = 48 (14)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld A

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 13

9 27.9 14.5 4.8

8 39.7 20.1 7.1

12 51.3 18.2 5.2

21 51.9 19.3 4.2

37 53.3 20.9 3.4

39 53.2 20.2 3.2

Count Mean Std. Dev. Std. Err.

Child age 6-7

Child age 8-9

Child age 10-12

Child Age 13-17

Yg Adult

Adult

Means Table for WMT DFR%Effect: Age Grp3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld A

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

Interaction Bar Plot for WMT DFR%Effect: Age Grp3

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 14

Percent Below Cutoff for Exaggeration

Group % Exaggerate

Age 6-7 54%

Age 8-9 27%

Age 10-12 20%

Age 13-17 12%

Yg Adult (18-25) 21%

Adult ( Age > 25) 20%

Total Sample 25%

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 15

No Age Effect on OTBM(T Scores for all cognitive ability tests normed by age group)

Means (SD)

Age 6-7 = 46 (6)

Age 8-9 = 47 (10)

Age 10-12 = 47 (9)

Age 13-17 = 47 (9)

Age 18-25 = 53 (7)

Age > 25 = 49 (9)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld A

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 16

No Age Effect on FSIQ(FSIQ for Wechsler IQs normed by age group)

Means (SD)

Age 6-7 = 98 (12)

Age 8-9 = 95 (21)

Age 10-12 = 98 (18)

Age 13-17 = 96 (18)

Age 18-25 = 108 (16)

Age > 25 = 99 (15)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld a

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 17

Type of Measure (Ability vs. Effort) by Age Group

Age Groups n OTBM Effort

Age 6-7 27 46 15

Age 8-9 26 48 31

Age 10-12 30 47 36

Age 13-17 26 45 46

Yg Adult 43 56 41

Adult 45 50 44

T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain injured adults. OTBM generated from normative data published in the administration manual for each test included.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Child

age

6-7

Child

age

8-9

Child

age

10-

12

Child

Age

13-

17

Yg A

dult

Adul

t

WMT Effort1 T

OTBM-2

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 18

IQ Effect on Mean IR & DR

Age Groups Low High

Age 6-7 4 25

Age 8-9 25 42

Age 10-12 26 49

Age 13-17 41 53

Yg Adult 22 47

Adult 31 51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cel

l Mea

n

Chi

ld a

ge 6

-7

Chi

ld a

ge 8

-9

Chi

ld a

ge 1

0-12

Chi

ld a

ge 1

3-17

Yg

Adu

lt

Adu

lt

Cell

High

Low

T Scores generated with 97 brain injured adults as normative group

FSIQ was split into High and Low at 100.

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 19

IQ Effect on WMT Diagnostic Groups

N % of Group Age

Gen-Low IQ 31 52% 11.3

Exag-Low IQ 29 48% 9.0

Gen-High IQ 35 80% 10.1

Exag-High IQ 9 20% 7.6

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 20

IQ EffectPatients Volunteers

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

WM

T DR

%

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140FSIQ

Y = 47.323 + .424 * X; R 2̂ = .223

Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

102

WM

T DR

%

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145FSIQ

Y = 96.951 + .003 * X; R 2̂ = 1.548E-4

Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 21

Age EffectPatients Volunteers

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

WM

T DR

%4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

AgeY = 89.762 + .786 * X; R 2̂ = .344

Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

WM

T DR

%

4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Age

Y = 67.704 + 1.966 * X; R 2̂ = .183

Regression PlotInclusion criteria: All Kids Pts from clinicdata.svd

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 22

Multiple Regression Results:IQ & Age Effects on WMT Effort Measures

Independent effects for IQ and Age on mean T score for effort on IR & DR.Results replicated & of similar magnitude when analyzing other effort measures (i.e, MC, PA), as well as DFR.

105

3

.66

.44

.42

19.54

Count

Num. Missing

R

R Squared

Adjusted R Squared

RMS Residual

Regression SummaryWMT Effort1 T vs. 2 IndependentsInclusion criteria: All Kids from clinicdata.svd

-81.03 12.91 -81.03 -6.27 <.0001

.80 .11 .53 7.16 <.0001

3.56 .65 .41 5.51 <.0001

Coefficient Std. Error Std. Coeff. t-Value P-Value

Intercept

FSIQ

Age

Regression CoefficientsWMT Effort1 T vs. 2 IndependentsInclusion criteria: All Kids from clinicdata.svd

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 23

Effect of Diagnosis on WMT Effort Measures

Dx Groups n M sd

ADHD 29 20 28

Gifted 1 56 --

LD 15 40 16

LD/ADHD 5 30 37

MR 3 - 43 6

Psych 9 37 14

Dev. Delay 15 25 26

No Dx 32 47 13

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

Cell M

ean

AD

HD

Brig

ht &

Gift

ed

LD

LD/A

DH

D MR

Psy

ch

Mix

Dev

Del

ay Non

e

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 24

Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis

As much as possible, categories for reason for referral were the same as those for primary diagnosis.This allowed for a measure of congruence

between reason for referral and diagnosis.

Overall congruence was greater for children than it was for adults.Congruence for Children = 58%Congruence for Adults = 44%

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 25

Association of Referral Question to Diagnosis

Incongruence between referral and diagnosis was significantly different for the ADHD and LD when children and adults were examined separately.ADHD - Only 27% of adults referred were

diagnosed ADHD, whereas 67% of children were diagnosed.

LD – Only 35% of adults referred were diagnosed LD, whereas 59% of children were diagnosed, primarily with dyslexia.

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 26

Effect of Diagnosis on Kids’ Overall Test Battery Mean (OTBM)

Dx Groups n M sd

ADHD 32 44 8

LD 17 45 7

LD/ADHD 6 43 5

MR 3 30 4

Psych 9 51 5

Dev. Delay 15 43 5

No Dx 34 51 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cel

l Mea

n

AD

HD LD

LD/A

DH

D MR

Psy

ch

Mix

Dev

Del

ay

Non

e

Cell

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 27

Diagnostic Group by Type of Measure in Children

Dx Groups n OTBM Effort

ADHD 29 44 20

LD 15 45 40

LD/ADHD 5 43 30

Psych 9 51 37

T Scores for effort generated with 97 brain injured adults. OTBM generated from normative data published in the administration manual for each test included.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

ADHD LD LD/ADHD Psych

WMT Effort1 TOTBM-2

10/20/2005 Rohling @ NAN - WMT with Kids 28

Conclusions

The WMT when used with children 12 y/o and under may need special cut scores for accurate detection of invalid performance. Age, Overall Cognitive ability (e.g., IQ), and

pathology (e.g., ADHD).

What corrections need to be made can’t yet be determined from the available data

Alternative tests may prove to be a better solution to SVT when examining kids (e.g., MSVT)