The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The California Verbal Learning Test – second edition: Test-retest reliability, practice effects, and reliable change indices for the standard and alternate forms
Abstract
The California Verbal Learning Test - second edition (CVLT-II) is one of the most widely used neuropsychological tests in North America. The present study evaluated the 1-month test-retest reliability and practice effects associated with the standard and alternate forms of the CVLT-II in a sample of 195 healthy adults. Eighty participants underwent repeat assessment using the standard form of the CVLT-II on both occasions, whereas the remaining 115 individuals received the standard form at baseline and the alternate form at follow-up. Consistent with prior research, results revealed generally large test-retest correlation coefficients for the primary CVLT-II measures in both the standard/standard (range=0.80-0.84) and standard/alternate (range=0.61-0.73) cohorts. Despite exhibiting slightly lower test-retest reliability coefficients, participants in the alternate form group displayed notably smaller practice effects (Cohen's d range=-0.01 to 0.18) on the primary indices relative to individuals who received the standard form on both occasions (Cohen's d range=0.27-0.61). Reliable change indices were also generated and applied to primary CVLT-II variables to determine the base rates of significant improvements (range=2-10%), declines (range=0-7%), and stability (range=85-97%) in performance over time. Overall, findings from this study support the test-retest reliability of the standard and alternate forms of the CVLT-II in healthy adults and may enhance the usefulness of this t…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“we calculated RCIPE using published normative data, which was derived from adults without clinical diagnoses, and for the CVLT-II, only raw scores uncorrected for age were available.”
Citations
Cites
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System
Delis, D. C., Kaplan, E., & Kramer, J. H. (2012) · PsycTESTS Dataset · doi:10.1037/t15082-000 · Cited by 2,683
Self-citationHandbook of Psychological Assessment
Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394258918 · Cited by 1,864
Benedict, R. H. B., Schretlen, D., Groninger, L., & Brandt, J. (1998) · The Clinical Neuropsychologist · doi:10.1076/clin.12.1.43.1726 · Cited by 1,597
Shunk, A. W., Davis, A. S., & Dean, R. S. (2006) · Applied Neuropsychology · doi:10.1207/s15324826an1304_9 · Cited by 1,540
Zinkus, P. W. (1987) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1797-5_8 · Cited by 1,510
Handbook of Psychological Assessment
Groth‐Marnat, G., & Wright, A. J. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2014-0-01970-3 · Cited by 1,247
Rabin, L., Barr, W., & Burton, L. A. (2004) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2004.02.005 · Cited by 871
Individual change after epilepsy surgery: Practice effects and base-rate information.
Chelune, G. J., Naugle, R. I., Lüders, H. O., Sedlak, J., & Awad, I. A. (1993) · Neuropsychology · doi:10.1037/0894-4105.7.1.41 · Cited by 599
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–401 of 401
Training effects in oculography in multiple sclerosis patients: a one-year longitudinal study
Hof, S. N., Molenaar, P. C. G., Lam, K. H., de Jong, D. J., Killestein, J., van Rijn, L. J., Petzold, A., & Uitdehaag, B. M. J. (2026) · Graefe s Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology · doi:10.1007/s00417-026-07540-6
Metadata
- Authors
- WOODS, S., DELIS, D., SCOTT, J., KRAMER, J., & HOLDNACK, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- San Diego State University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Venue
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 413-420
- ISSN
- 0887-6177 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985099153
- Cited by
- 401
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- test-retest reliability, practice effects, reliable change index, alternate test forms, verbal learning, memory assessment, healthy adults
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Practice, Psychological, Reference Values, Time Factors, Verbal Learning, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
