Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:53:13.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Modified Word Learning Test and the Aged Psychiatric Patient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2018

N. Bolton
Affiliation:
University of Durham
R. D. Savage
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
M. Roth
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Extract

This paper reports primarily the use of the MWLT (Walton and Black, 1957) on aged subjects with a variety of clinical conditions. Earlier studies by Walton (1958), Walton, White, Black and Young (1959) and Walton and Mather (1961) demonstrated that the MWLT identified over 80 per cent. of organics without any misclassification of non-organics. More recently, Orme, Lee and Smith (1964) found that 81 per cent. of organics were correctly classified, but only 69 per cent. of non-organics. Misclassification was particularly serious with schizophrenics (70 per cent.). Other reports, including Newcombe and Steinberg (1964), White and Knox (1965), have found as few as 47 per cent. of the organic group correctly classified. These recent studies cast some doubt upon the original claims of the MWLT as a diagnostic test of generalized brain damage. We hope to present further evidence on the efficiency of the MWLT; particularly on its use with elderly subjects.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1967 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolton, N., Britton, P. G., and Savage, R. D. (1966). “Some normative data on the WAIS and its indices in an aged population.” J. clin. Psychol., 22, 184188.Google Scholar
Inglis, J. (1957). “An experimental study of learning and ‘memory function’ in elderly psychiatric patients.” J. ment. Sci., 103, 796–603.Google Scholar
Inglis, J. (1959). “A paired-associate learning test for use with elderly psychiatric patients.” Ibid., 105 440443.Google ScholarPubMed
Kay, D. W. K., Beamish, P., and Roth, M. (1964a). “Old age mental disorders in Newcastle upon Tyne: Part I: a study of prevalence.” Brit. J. Psychiat., 110, 146158.Google Scholar
Kay, D. W. K., Beamish, P., and Roth, M. (1964b). “Old age mental disorders in Newcastle upon Tyne: Part II: a study of possible social and medical causes.” Ibid., 110, 668682.Google Scholar
Kendrick, D. C., Parboosingh, , Rose-Cecile, , and Post, F. (1965). “A Synonym Learning Test for use with elderly psychiatric patients.” Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 4, 6371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newcombe, F., and Steinberg, B. (1964). “Some aspects of learning and memory function in older psychiatric patients.” J. Gerontol., 19, 490493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orme, J. E., Lee, D., and Smith, M. R. (1964). “Psychological assessment of brain damage and intellectual impairment in psychiatric patients.” Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 3, 161167.Google Scholar
Riddell, S. A. (1962). “The relationship between tests of organic involvement, memory inpairment and diagnosis in elderly psychiatric patients.” Ibid., 1, 228231.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (1958). “The diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Modified Word Learning Test in psychiatric patients over 65.” J. ment. Sci., 104, 11191122.Google Scholar
Walton, D. and Black, D. A. (1957). “The validity of a psychological test of brain damage.” Brit. J. med. Psychol., 30, 270279.Google Scholar
Walton, D. and Mather, (1961). “A further study of the predictive validity of a psychological test of brain damage.” Ibid., 34, 73.Google Scholar
Walton, D., White, J. C., Black, D. A., and Young, A. J. (1959). “The Modified Word Learning Test: a cross-validation study.” Ibid., 32, 213220.Google Scholar
White, J. G., and Knox, S. J. (1965). “Some psychological correlates of age and dementia.” Brit. J. soc. clin. Psychol., 4, 259265.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.