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 gt70 to participate)
• SPAT, ASL Stories Test administered
• Clinical sample
• Suspected of brain impairment
• PIQ or Ravens IQ gt 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)