Article

Diagnostic memory assessment in Italian-born Australians.

Department of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
International Psychogeriatrics (Impact Factor: 2.19). 03/2011; 23(7):1133-43. DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211000305
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In many English-speaking countries neuropsychological assessment of non-English speakers is often performed in English or through an interpreter. Relying on interpreters often involves unstandardized and ad hoc translations of tests which may limit valid assessment.
In a sample of 75 Italian-born elderly Australians from the general community (48 women and 27 men, aged 56-90 years) we administered standardized and normed psychological tests in both English (WMS-III, WAIS-III, BNT, Schonell Graded Word Reading Test) and Italian (Milan Overall Dementia Assessment, MODA). We examined the hypothesis that long-term retrieval ability assessed in English is primarily influenced by cognitive abilities assessed in Italian and by English language competence.
Regression analysis showed that the strongest predictor of long-term retrieval in English was long-term retrieval in Italian (R2 = 0.229, F(72) = 29.12, p<0.01). After inclusion of an estimate of general cognitive ability in Italian, English language competence failed to add significantly to variance explained in memory tested in English (p > 0.05).
Results of the present study support the view that long-term retrieval memory is not significantly affected by second language proficiency after control of cognitive ability assessed in Italian. As a consequence, if an Italian-born elder Australian with English as a second language scores poorly on a diagnostic memory test, this result may be due to cognitive impairment rather than language issues. If, instead, we attribute poor performance to language competence, an increased risk of false negative diagnosis may arise.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
201 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this review is to update clinicians and researchers regarding neuropsychological tools that have been normed in Greece, thereby assisting them to improve diagnostic accuracy when undertaking neuropsychological assessment of Greek-speaking individuals. A growing number of neuropsychological tests of cognition have been normed in the healthy Greek adult population and the findings reported in the English-language literature. Neuropsychological Greek normative studies have revealed performance differences in Greek speakers. In general, research findings indicate that population-specific norms are required for accurate neuropsychological assessment of the Greek adult population. Validating neuropsychological tests of cognition in healthy Greek adults improves clinicians' and researchers' ability to accurately assess, diagnose and manage Greek individuals with cognitive disorders. Normative studies in Greek-speaking clinical populations and studies examining performance differences between native Greek speakers and the Greek diaspora are directions for future research.
    Current opinion in psychiatry 03/2010; 23(3):261-6. · 3.57 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The literature on the effects of education and cultural background on Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III (WAIS-III), Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III), WAIS-R and WMS-R performances was reviewed. The electronic databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched over the period 1980–2008 and reference lists from papers identified were examined for relevant articles. of 3,081 papers identified, 19 met criteria including English language, group research, adult sample, quantitative data published and focus on relationship between culture and/or education and performances on WAIS-III, WMS-III, WAIS-R or WMS-R measures. There was converging evidence that both education and culture showed significant relationships with test performances, particularly on the WAIS-III and WAIS-R in control and clinical groups. The limited research available did not demonstrate improved diagnostic efficiency with the application of demographic corrections for the WAIS-III. Clinical implications were discussed, including the issue of compromised validity when assessing people from diverse cultural backgrounds for whom relevant normative data are not available. Suggested research directions included the development of culturally and linguistically specific normative data, the modification and validation of “culture-free” tests and the examination of cultural effects in clinical groups in the Australian context.
    Australian Psychologist 01/2009; 44(4):216-223. · 0.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical neuropsychology has frequently considered visuospatial and non-verbal tests to be culturally and educationally fair or at least fairer than verbal tests. This paper reviews the cross-cultural differences in performance on visuoperceptual and visuoconstructional ability tasks and analyzes the impact of education and culture on non-verbal neuropsychological measurements. This paper compares: (1) non-verbal test performance among groups with different educational levels, and the same cultural background (inter-education intra-culture comparison); (2) the test performance among groups with the same educational level and different cultural backgrounds (intra-education inter-culture comparisons). Several studies have demonstrated a strong association between educational level and performance on common non-verbal neuropsychological tests. When neuropsychological test performance in different cultural groups is compared, significant differences are evident. Performance on non-verbal tests such as copying figures, drawing maps or listening to tones can be significantly influenced by the individual's culture. Arguments against the use of some current neuropsychological non-verbal instruments, procedures, and norms in the assessment of diverse educational and cultural groups are discussed and possible solutions to this problem are presented.
    Brain and Cognition 09/2003; 52(3):326-33. · 2.82 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
116 Downloads
Available from
May 17, 2014