Signed Paired Associates Test (SPAT)

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

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

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)