CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 401Psychological Testing and AssessmentHistorical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

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

WOODS, S, DELIS, D, SCOTT, J, KRAMER, J, HOLDNACK, J·2006·Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
DOI 10.1016/j.acn.2006.06.002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.acn.2006.06.002

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 401

Related

See all

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)
ORCID
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)
DOI
10.1016/j.acn.2006.06.002
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